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

Typo in percent

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-29 23:11:43 +02:00
parent 6616d82f55
commit fcbda4a3e7
2 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{21.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
Less contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\qty{-13}{\%}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.004});
and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{None} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.006}) and \level{Occlusion} (\qty{-17}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
Less contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\percent{-13}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.004});
and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{None} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.006}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-17}, \p{0.001}).
This result suggests that having no visible visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
But, surprisingly, only \level{Tips} and \level{Mesh} were statistically significantly better, not \level{Contour} nor \level{Skeleton}.
@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001});
shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.04});
shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.001});
shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-10}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.04});
shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-8}, \pinf{0.001}).
As for the \level{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping, maybe thanks to the fact that it provides information about both position and rotation of the tracked fingertips.