erwan/phd-thesis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix vh-hand chapter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-25 09:00:03 +02:00
parent 5ea0d208ae
commit e80908b7f5
7 changed files with 104 additions and 113 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

38
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex
View File

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
\subsection{Discrimination of Vibration Techniques}
\label{technique_results}
Seven participants were able to correctly discriminate between the two vibration techniques, which they described as the contact vibration (being the Impact technique) and the continuous vibration (being the Distance technique) respectively.
Seven participants were able to correctly discriminate between the two vibration techniques, which they described as the contact vibration (being the \level{Impact} technique) and the continuous vibration (being the \level{Distance} technique) respectively.
%
Seven participants said they only felt differences of intensity with a weak one (being the Impact technique) and a strong one (being the Distance technique).
Seven participants said they only felt differences of intensity with a weak one (being the \level{Impact} technique) and a strong one (being the \level{Distance} technique).
%
Six participants did not notice the difference between the two vibration techniques.
%
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ As the tasks had to be completed as quickly as possible, we hypothesize that lit
%
Indeed, some participants explained that the contact cues were sufficient to indicate whether the cube was being properly pushed or grasped.
%
Although the Distance technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetration of the finger with the cube, it was not strictly necessary to manipulate the cube quickly.
Although the \level{Distance} technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetration of the finger with the cube, it was not strictly necessary to manipulate the cube quickly.
\subsection{Questionnaire}
\label{questions}
@@ -44,54 +44,54 @@ Only significant results are reported.
There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{27.0}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
Participants preferred Fingertips more than Wrist (\p{0.01}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.01}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
%
Proximal more than Wrist (\p{0.007}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.007}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
%
And Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.01}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001}).
And \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.01}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
\label{positioning_hand}
There were two main effects of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of Hand (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
Participants preferred Fingertips more than Wrist (\p{0.03}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
%
Proximal more than Wrist (\p{0.003}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.003}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
%
Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.03}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
%
And Skeleton more than No Hand (\pinf{0.001}).
And \level{Skeleton} more than No Hand (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Workload}
\label{workload}
There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}).
%
Participants found Opposite more fatiguing than Fingertips (\p{0.01}), Proximal (\p{0.003}), and Wrist (\p{0.02}).
Participants found \level{Opposite} more fatiguing than \level{Fingertips} (\p{0.01}), \level{Proximal} (\p{0.003}), and \level{Wrist} (\p{0.02}).
\subsubsection{Usefulness}
\label{usefulness}
There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{38.0}, \p{0.041}).
%
Participants found Fingertips the most useful, more than Proximal (\p{0.02}), Wrist (\pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most useful, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.02}), \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
Proximal more than Wrist (\p{0.008}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.008}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.008}) and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.008}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
And Opposite more than No Vibrations (\p{0.004}).
And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.004}).
\subsubsection{Realism}
\label{realism}
There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{28.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
Participants found Fingertips the most realistic, more than Proximal (\p{0.05}), Wrist (\p{0.004}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most realistic, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.05}), \level{Wrist} (\p{0.004}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
Proximal more than Wrist (\p{0.03}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.03}) and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
And Opposite more than No Vibrations (\p{0.03}).
And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.03}).