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

Fix acronyms

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-24 15:47:33 +02:00
parent 2dad3efdd0
commit ef188c1993
26 changed files with 165 additions and 159 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

38
2-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex
View File

@@ -4,42 +4,42 @@
\subsection{Trial Measures}
\label{results_trials}
All measures from trials were analysed using linear mixed models (LMM) or generalised linear mixed models (GLMM) with \factor{Visual Rendering}, \factor{Amplitude Difference} and their interaction as within-participant factors, and by-participant random intercepts.
All measures from trials were analysed using \LMM or \GLMM with \factor{Visual Rendering}, \factor{Amplitude Difference} and their interaction as within-participant factors, and by-participant random intercepts.
%
Depending on the data, different random effect structures were tested.
%
Only the best converging models are reported, with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values.
%
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using the Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test.
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using the Tukey's \HSD test.
%
Each estimate is reported with its 95\% confidence interval (CI) as follows: \ci{\textrm{lower limit}}{\textrm{upper limit}}.
Each estimate is reported with its 95\% \CI as follows: \ci{\textrm{lower limit}}{\textrm{upper limit}}.
\subsubsection{Discrimination Accuracy}
\label{discrimination_accuracy}
A GLMM was adjusted to the \response{Texture Choice} in the 2AFC vibrotactile texture roughness discrimination task, with by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes, and a probit link function (\figref{results/trial_predictions}).
A \GLMM was adjusted to the \response{Texture Choice} in the \TIFC vibrotactile texture roughness discrimination task, with by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes, and a probit link function (\figref{results/trial_predictions}).
%
The points of subjective equality (PSEs, see \figref{results/trial_pses}) and just-noticeable differences (JNDs, see \figref{results/trial_jnds}) for each visual rendering and their respective differences were estimated from the model, along with their corresponding 95\% CI, using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure (1000 samples).
The \PSEs (\figref{results/trial_pses}) and \JNDs (\figref{results/trial_jnds}) for each visual rendering and their respective differences were estimated from the model, along with their corresponding 95\% \CI, using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure (1000 samples).
%
The PSE represents the estimated amplitude difference at which the comparison texture was perceived as rougher than the reference texture 50\% of the time. %, \ie it is the accuracy of participants in discriminating vibrotactile roughness.
A \PSE represents the estimated amplitude difference at which the comparison texture was perceived as rougher than the reference texture 50\% of the time. %, \ie it is the accuracy of participants in discriminating vibrotactile roughness.
%
The \level{Real} rendering had the highest PSE (\percent{7.9} \ci{1.2}{4.1}) and was statistically significantly different from the \level{Mixed} rendering (\percent{1.9} \ci{-2.4}{6.1}) and from the \level{Virtual} rendering (\percent{5.1} \ci{2.4}{7.6}).
A \level{Real} rendering had the highest \PSE (\percent{7.9} \ci{1.2}{4.1}) and was statistically significantly different from the \level{Mixed} rendering (\percent{1.9} \ci{-2.4}{6.1}) and from the \level{Virtual} rendering (\percent{5.1} \ci{2.4}{7.6}).
%
The JND represents the estimated minimum amplitude difference between the comparison and reference textures that participants could perceive,
The \JND represents the estimated minimum amplitude difference between the comparison and reference textures that participants could perceive,
% \ie the sensitivity to vibrotactile roughness differences,
calculated at the 84th percentile of the predictions of the GLMM (\ie one standard deviation of the normal distribution) \cite{ernst2002humans}.
calculated at the 84th percentile of the predictions of the \GLMM (\ie one standard deviation of the normal distribution) \cite{ernst2002humans}.
%
The \level{Real} rendering had the lowest JND (\percent{26} \ci{23}{29}), the \level{Mixed} rendering had the highest (\percent{33} \ci{30}{37}), and the \level{Virtual} rendering was in between (\percent{30} \ci{28}{32}).
The \level{Real} rendering had the lowest \JND (\percent{26} \ci{23}{29}), the \level{Mixed} rendering had the highest (\percent{33} \ci{30}{37}), and the \level{Virtual} rendering was in between (\percent{30} \ci{28}{32}).
%
All pairwise differences were statistically significant.
\begin{subfigs}{discrimination_accuracy}{Results of the vibrotactile texture roughness discrimination task. }[
Curves represent predictions from the GLMM model (probit link function), and points are estimated marginal means with non-parametric bootstrap 95\% confidence intervals.
Curves represent predictions from the \GLMM model (probit link function), and points are estimated marginal means with non-parametric bootstrap 95\% confidence intervals.
][
\item Proportion of trials in which the comparison texture was perceived as rougher than the reference texture, as a function of the amplitude difference between the two textures and the visual rendering.
\item Estimated points of subjective equality (PSE) of each visual rendering.
\item Estimated \PSE of each visual rendering.
%, defined as the amplitude difference at which both reference and comparison textures are perceived to be equivalent, \ie the accuracy in discriminating vibrotactile roughness.
\item Estimated just-noticeable difference (JND) of each visual rendering.
\item Estimated \JND of each visual rendering.
%, defined as the minimum perceptual amplitude difference, \ie the sensitivity to vibrotactile roughness differences.
]
\subfig[0.85]{results/trial_predictions}\\
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ All pairwise differences were statistically significant.
\subsubsection{Response Time}
\label{response_time}
A LMM analysis of variance (AOV) with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering}, and a log transformation (as \response{Response Time} measures were gamma distributed) indicated a statistically significant effects on \response{Response Time} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{6.2}, \p{0.009}, see \figref{results/trial_response_times}).
A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering}, and a log transformation (as \response{Response Time} measures were gamma distributed) indicated a statistically significant effects on \response{Response Time} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{6.2}, \p{0.009}, see \figref{results/trial_response_times}).
%
Participants took longer on average to respond with the \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{1.65}{s} \ci{1.59}{1.72}) than with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{1.38}{s} \ci{1.32}{1.43}), which is the only statistically significant difference (\ttest{19}{0.3}, \p{0.005}).
%
@@ -61,20 +61,20 @@ The \level{Mixed} rendering was in between (\geomean{1.56}{s} \ci{1.49}{1.63}).
The frames analysed were those in which the participants actively touched the comparison textures with a finger speed greater than \SI{1}{\mm\per\second}.
%
A LMM AOV with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering} indicated only one statistically significant effect on the total distance traveled by the finger in a trial of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{3.9}, \p{0.04}, see \figref{results/trial_distances}).
A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering} indicated only one statistically significant effect on the total distance traveled by the finger in a trial of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{3.9}, \p{0.04}, see \figref{results/trial_distances}).
%
On average, participants explored a larger distance with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{20.0}{\cm} \ci{19.4}{20.7}) than with \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{16.5}{\cm} \ci{15.8}{17.1}), which is the only statistically significant difference (\ttest{19}{1.2}, \p{0.03}), with the \level{Mixed} rendering (\geomean{17.4}{\cm} \ci{16.8}{18.0}) in between.
%
Another LMM AOV with by-trial and by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes indicated only one statistically significant effect on \response{Finger Speed} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{2142}{2.0}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/trial_speeds}).
Another \LMM \ANOVA with by-trial and by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes indicated only one statistically significant effect on \response{Finger Speed} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{2142}{2.0}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/trial_speeds}).
%
On average, the textures were explored with the highest speed with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{5.12}{\cm\per\second} \ci{5.08}{5.17}), the lowest with the \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{4.40}{\cm\per\second} \ci{4.35}{4.45}), and the \level{Mixed} rendering (\geomean{4.67}{\cm\per\second} \ci{4.63}{4.71}) in between.
%
All pairwise differences were statistically significant: \level{Real} \vs \level{Virtual} (\ttest{19}{1.17}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Real} \vs \level{Mixed} (\ttest{19}{1.10}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Mixed} \vs \level{Virtual} (\ttest{19}{1.07}, \p{0.02}).
%
%This means that within the same time window on the same surface, participants explored the comparison texture on average at a greater distance and at a higher speed when in the real environment without visual representation of the hand (\level{Real} condition) than when in VR (\level{Virtual} condition).
%This means that within the same time window on the same surface, participants explored the comparison texture on average at a greater distance and at a higher speed when in the real environment without visual representation of the hand (\level{Real} condition) than when in \VR (\level{Virtual} condition).
\begin{subfigs}{results_finger}{Results of the performance metrics for the rendering condition. }[
Boxplots and geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% confidence interval, with pairwise Tukey's HSD tests: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
Boxplots and geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI, with Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
][
\item Response time at the end of a trial.
\item Distance travelled by the finger in a trial.
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ Overall, participants' sense of control over the virtual hand was very high (\re
%
The textures were also overall found to be very much caused by the finger movements (\response{Texture Agency}, \num{4.5 +- 1.0}) with a very low perceived latency (\response{Texture Latency}, \num{1.6 +- 0.8}), and to be quite realistic (\response{Texture Realism}, \num{3.6 +- 0.9}) and quite plausible (\response{Texture Plausibility}, \num{3.6 +- 1.0}).
%
Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the top of their finger (\response{Vibration Location}, \num{3.9 +- 1.7}); the distribution of scores was split between the two poles of the scale with \level{Real} and \level{Mixed} renderings (42.5\% more on surface or on finger top, 15\% neutral), but there was a trend towards the top of the finger in VR renderings (65\% \vs 25\% more on surface and 10\% neutral), but this difference was not statistically significant neither.
Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the top of their finger (\response{Vibration Location}, \num{3.9 +- 1.7}); the distribution of scores was split between the two poles of the scale with \level{Real} and \level{Mixed} renderings (42.5\% more on surface or on finger top, 15\% neutral), but there was a trend towards the top of the finger in \VR renderings (65\% \vs 25\% more on surface and 10\% neutral), but this difference was not statistically significant neither.
%
The vibrations were felt a slightly weak overall (\response{Vibration Strength}, \num{4.2 +- 1.1}), and the vibrotactile device was perceived as neither distracting (\response{Device Distraction}, \num{1.2 +- 0.4}) nor uncomfortable (\response{Device Discomfort}, \num{1.3 +- 0.6}).
%