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

14
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex
View File

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
\section{User Study}
\label{method}
Providing haptic feedback during free-hand manipulation in AR is not trivial, as wearing haptic devices on the hand might affect the tracking capabilities of the system.
Providing haptic feedback during free-hand manipulation in \AR is not trivial, as wearing haptic devices on the hand might affect the tracking capabilities of the system.
%
Moreover, it is important to leave the user capable of interacting with both virtual and real objects, avoiding the use of haptic interfaces that cover the fingertips or palm.
%
For this reason, it is often considered beneficial to move the point of application of the haptic rendering elsewhere on the hand.% (\secref{haptics}).
This second experiment aims to evaluate whether a visuo-haptic hand rendering affects the performance and user experience of manipulation of virtual objects with bare hands in AR.
This second experiment aims to evaluate whether a visuo-haptic hand rendering affects the performance and user experience of manipulation of virtual objects with bare hands in \AR.
%
The chosen visuo-haptic hand renderings are the combination of the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment, \ie Skeleton and None, described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}, with two contact vibration techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand.
@@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ Similarly, we designed the distance vibration technique (Dist) so that interpene
\end{subfigs}
\begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics. }[
Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% confidence interval for each vibrotactile positioning (a, b and c) or visual hand rendering (d)
and Tukey's HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI for each vibrotactile positioning (a, b and c) or visual hand rendering (d)
and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
][
\item Time to complete a trial.
\item Number of contacts with the cube.
@@ -189,10 +189,10 @@ They all had a normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
%
Thirteen subjects participated also in the previous experiment.
Participants rated their expertise (\enquote{I use it more than once a year}) with VR, AR, and haptics in a pre-experiment questionnaire.
Participants rated their expertise (\enquote{I use it more than once a year}) with \VR, \AR, and haptics in a pre-experiment questionnaire.
%
There were twelve experienced with VR, eight experienced with AR, and ten experienced with haptics.
There were twelve experienced with \VR, eight experienced with \AR, and ten experienced with haptics.
%
VR and haptics expertise were highly correlated (\pearson{0.9}), as well as AR and haptics expertise (\pearson{0.6}).
VR and haptics expertise were highly correlated (\pearson{0.9}), as well as \AR and haptics expertise (\pearson{0.6}).
%
Other expertise correlations were low ($r<0.35$).

4
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex
View File

@@ -31,11 +31,11 @@ Although the Distance technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetra
\figref{results_questions} shows the questionnaire results for each vibrotactile positioning.
%
Questionnaire results were analyzed using Aligned Rank Transform (ART) non-parametric analysis of variance (\secref{metrics}).
Questionnaire results were analyzed using \ART non-parametric \ANOVA (\secref{metrics}).
%
Statistically significant effects were further analyzed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment.
%
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for main effects and ART contrasts procedure for interaction effects.
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for main effects and \ART contrasts procedure for interaction effects.
%
Only significant results are reported.

4
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-results.tex
View File

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
\label{results}
\begin{subfigs}{grasp_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics for each vibrotactile positioning. }[
Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% confidence and Tukey's HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% confidence and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
][
\item Time to complete a trial.
\item Number of contacts with the cube.
@@ -17,5 +17,5 @@
Results were analyzed similarly as for the first experiment (\secref{results}).
%
The LMM were fitted with the order of the five vibrotactile positionings (Order), the vibrotactile positionings (Positioning), the visual hand rendering (Hand), the {contact vibration techniques} (Technique), and the target volume position (Target), and their interactions as fixed effects and Participant as random intercept.
The \LMM were fitted with the order of the five vibrotactile positionings (Order), the vibrotactile positionings (Positioning), the visual hand rendering (Hand), the {contact vibration techniques} (Technique), and the target volume position (Target), and their interactions as fixed effects and Participant as random intercept.

6
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
We evaluated sixteen visuo-haptic renderings of the hand, in the same two virtual object manipulation tasks in AR as in the first experiment, as the combination of two vibrotactile contact techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand with the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment.
We evaluated sixteen visuo-haptic renderings of the hand, in the same two virtual object manipulation tasks in \AR as in the first experiment, as the combination of two vibrotactile contact techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand with the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment.
In the Push task, vibrotactile haptic hand rendering has been proven beneficial with the Proximal positioning, which registered a low completion time, but detrimental with the Fingertips positioning, which performed worse (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) than the Proximal and Opposite (on the contralateral hand) positionings.
%
@@ -59,11 +59,11 @@ It is also worth noting that the improved hand tracking and grasp helper improve
%
This improvement could also be the reason for the smaller differences between the Skeleton and the None visual hand renderings in this second experiment.
In summary, the positioning of the vibrotactile haptic rendering of the hand affected on the performance and experience of users manipulating virtual objects with their bare hands in AR.
In summary, the positioning of the vibrotactile haptic rendering of the hand affected on the performance and experience of users manipulating virtual objects with their bare hands in \AR.
%
The closer the vibrotactile hand rendering was to the point of contact, the better it was perceived in terms of effectiveness, usefulness, and realism.
%
These subjective appreciations of wearable haptic hand rendering for manipulating virtual objects in AR were also observed by \textcite{maisto2017evaluation} and \textcite{meli2018combining}.
These subjective appreciations of wearable haptic hand rendering for manipulating virtual objects in \AR were also observed by \textcite{maisto2017evaluation} and \textcite{meli2018combining}.
%
However, the best performance was obtained with the farthest positioning on the contralateral hand, which is somewhat surprising.
%

4
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/5-conclusion.tex
View File

@@ -11,6 +11,6 @@ However, the farthest positioning on the contralateral hand gave the best perfor
%
The visual hand rendering was perceived less necessary than the vibrotactile haptic hand rendering, but still provided a useful feedback on the hand tracking.
Future work will focus on including richer types of haptic feedback, such as pressure and skin stretch, analyzing the best compromise between well-round haptic feedback and wearability of the system with respect to AR constraints.
Future work will focus on including richer types of haptic feedback, such as pressure and skin stretch, analyzing the best compromise between well-round haptic feedback and wearability of the system with respect to \AR constraints.
%
As delocalizing haptic feedback seems to be a simple but very promising approach for haptic-enabled AR, we will keep including this dimension in our future study, even when considering other types of haptic sensations.
As delocalizing haptic feedback seems to be a simple but very promising approach for haptic-enabled \AR, we will keep including this dimension in our future study, even when considering other types of haptic sensations.