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

16
3-manipulation/visual-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
We evaluated six visual hand renderings, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two virtual object manipulation tasks in AR.
We evaluated six visual hand renderings, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two virtual object manipulation tasks in \AR.
During the Push task, the Skeleton hand rendering was the fastest (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}), as participants employed fewer and longer contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
%
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ However, during the Grasp task, despite no difference in completion time, provid
%
Indeed, participants found the None and Occlusion renderings less effective (\figref{results/Ranks-Grasp}) and less precise (\figref{questions}).
%
To understand whether the participants' previous experience might have played a role, we also carried out an additional statistical analysis considering VR experience as an additional between-subjects factor, \ie VR novices vs. VR experts (\enquote{I use it every week}, see \secref{participants}).
To understand whether the participants' previous experience might have played a role, we also carried out an additional statistical analysis considering \VR experience as an additional between-subjects factor, \ie \VR novices vs. \VR experts (\enquote{I use it every week}, see \secref{participants}).
%
We found no statistically significant differences when comparing the considered metrics between VR novices and experts.
We found no statistically significant differences when comparing the considered metrics between \VR novices and experts.
Interestingly, all visual hand renderings showed grip apertures very close to the size of the virtual cube, except for the None rendering (\figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Hand-Overall-Means}), with which participants applied stronger grasps, \ie less distance between the fingertips.
%
@@ -35,17 +35,17 @@ while others found that it gave them a better sense of the contact points and im
%
This result are consistent with \textcite{saito2021contact}, who found that displaying the points of contacts was beneficial for grasping a virtual object over an opaque visual hand overlay.
To summarize, when employing a visual hand rendering overlaying the real hand, participants were more performant and confident in manipulating virtual objects with bare hands in AR.
To summarize, when employing a visual hand rendering overlaying the real hand, participants were more performant and confident in manipulating virtual objects with bare hands in \AR.
%
These results contrast with similar manipulation studies, but in non-immersive, on-screen AR, where the presence of a visual hand rendering was found by participants to improve the usability of the interaction, but not their performance \cite{blaga2017usability,maisto2017evaluation,meli2018combining}.
These results contrast with similar manipulation studies, but in non-immersive, on-screen \AR, where the presence of a visual hand rendering was found by participants to improve the usability of the interaction, but not their performance \cite{blaga2017usability,maisto2017evaluation,meli2018combining}.
%
Our results show the most effective visual hand rendering to be the Skeleton one{. Participants appreciated that} it provided a detailed and precise view of the tracking of the real hand{, without} hiding or masking it.
%
Although the Contour and Mesh hand renderings were also highly rated, some participants felt that they were too visible and masked the real hand.
%
This result is in line with the results of virtual object manipulation in VR of \textcite{prachyabrued2014visual}, who found that the most effective visual hand rendering was a double representation of both the real tracked hand and a visual hand physically constrained by the virtual environment.
This result is in line with the results of virtual object manipulation in \VR of \textcite{prachyabrued2014visual}, who found that the most effective visual hand rendering was a double representation of both the real tracked hand and a visual hand physically constrained by the virtual environment.
%
This type of Skeleton rendering was also the one that provided the best sense of agency (control) in VR \cite{argelaguet2016role, schwind2018touch}.
This type of Skeleton rendering was also the one that provided the best sense of agency (control) in \VR \cite{argelaguet2016role, schwind2018touch}.
These results have of course some limitations as they only address limited types of manipulation tasks and visual hand characteristics, evaluated in a specific OST-AR setup.
%
@@ -55,4 +55,4 @@ Testing a wider range of virtual objects and more ecological tasks \eg stacking,
%
Similarly, a broader experimental study might shed light on the role of gender and age, as our subject pool was not sufficiently diverse in this respect.
%
However, we believe that the results presented here provide a rather interesting overview of the most promising approaches in AR manipulation.
However, we believe that the results presented here provide a rather interesting overview of the most promising approaches in \AR manipulation.