Fix warnings

This commit is contained in:
2024-09-30 14:35:32 +02:00
parent 85f7d96a21
commit f345dcf94e
9 changed files with 7 additions and 7 deletions

View File

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Conversely, the perceived latency of the virtual hand (\response{Hand Latency} q
The \level{Mixed} rendering had the lowest \PSE and highest perceived latency, the \level{Virtual} rendering had a higher \PSE and lower perceived latency, and the \level{Real} rendering had the highest \PSE and no virtual hand latency (as it was not displayed).
Our wearable visuo-haptic texture augmentation system, described in \chapref{vhar_system}, aimed to provide a coherent visuo-haptic renderings registered with the \RE.
Yet, it involves different sensory interaction loops between the user's movements and the visuo-haptic feedback (\figref{method/diagram} and \figref[introduction]{interaction_loop}), which may not feel to be in synchronized with each other or with proprioception.
Yet, it involves different sensory interaction loops between the user's movements and the visuo-haptic feedback (\figref[vhar_system]{diagram} and \figref[introduction]{interaction-loop}), which may not feel to be in synchronized with each other or with proprioception.
%When a user runs their finger over a vibrotactile virtual texture, the haptic sensations and eventual display of the virtual hand lag behind the visual displacement and proprioceptive sensations of the real hand.
%
Thereby, we hypothesize that the differences in the perception of vibrotactile roughness are less due to the visual rendering of the hand or the environment and their associated differences in exploration behaviour, but rather to the difference in the \emph{perceived} latency between one's own hand (visual and proprioception) and the virtual hand (visual and haptic).