Typo

4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -27,10 +27,10 @@ They are described as follows, with the corresponding abbreviation in brackets:
 When a fingertip contacts the virtual cube, we activate the corresponding vibrating actuator.
 We considered two representative contact vibration techniques, \ie two ways of rendering such contacts through vibrations:
 \begin{itemize}
-  \item \level{Impact} (Impa): a \qty{200}{\ms}--long vibration burst is applied when the fingertip makes contact with the object.
+  \item \level{Impact}: a \qty{200}{\ms}--long vibration burst is applied when the fingertip makes contact with the object.
     The amplitude of the vibration is proportional to the speed of the fingertip at the moment of the contact.
     This technique is inspired by the impact vibrations modelled by tapping on real surfaces, as described in \secref[related_work]{hardness_rendering}.
-  \item \level{Distance} (Dist): a continuous vibration is applied whenever the fingertip is in contact with the object.
+  \item \level{Distance}: a continuous vibration is applied whenever the fingertip is in contact with the object.
     The amplitude of the vibration is proportional to the interpenetration between the fingertip and the virtual cube surface.
 \end{itemize}
 
@@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ The implementation of these two techniques have been tuned according to the resu
 Three participants were asked to carry out a series of push and grasp tasks similar to those used in the actual experiment.
 Results showed that \percent{95} of the contacts between the fingertip and the virtual cube happened at speeds below \qty{1.5}{\m\per\s}.
 We also measured the perceived minimum amplitude to be \percent{15} (\qty{0.6}{\g}) of the maximum amplitude of the motors we used.
-For this reason, we designed the Impact vibration technique (Impa) so that contact speeds from \qtyrange{0}{1.5}{\m\per\s} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors.
-Similarly, we designed the distance vibration technique (Dist) so that interpenetrations from \qtyrange{0}{2.5}{\cm} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors, recalling that the virtual cube has an edge of \qty{5}{\cm}.
+For this reason, we designed the \level{Impact} vibration technique so that contact speeds from \qtyrange{0}{1.5}{\m\per\s} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors.
+Similarly, we designed the \level{Distance} vibration technique so that interpenetrations from \qtyrange{0}{2.5}{\cm} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors, recalling that the virtual cube has an edge of \qty{5}{\cm}.
 
 \section{User Study}
 \label{method}
@@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ We considered the same two \level{Push} and \level{Grasp} tasks as described in
     \begin{itemize}
       \item left-bottom (\level{LB}) and left-right (\level{LF}) during the \level{Push} task; and
       \item right-bottom (\level{RB}), left-bottom (\level{LB}), left-right (\level{LF}) and right-front (\level{RF}) during the \level{Grasp} task.
-    \end{itemize}. We considered these targets because they presented different difficulties.
+    \end{itemize}
+    We considered these targets because they presented different difficulties in the previous user study (\chapref{visual_hand}).
 \end{itemize}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{tasks}{The two manipulation tasks of the user study.}[
@@ -114,10 +115,10 @@ Preliminary tests confirmed this approach.
 \subsection{Participants}
 \label{participants}
 
-Twenty subjects participated in the study (mean age = 26.8, \sd{4.1}; 19~males, 1~female).
+Twenty participants were recruited for the study (19 males, 1 female), aged between 20 and 35 years (\median{26}{}, \iqr{5.3}{}).
 One was left-handed, while the other nineteen were right-handed. They all used their dominant hand during the trials.
 They all had a normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
-Thirteen subjects participated also in the previous experiment.
+Thirteen participants 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.
 There were twelve experienced with \VR, eight experienced with \AR, and ten experienced with haptics.
@@ -137,5 +138,5 @@ They then rated the ten combinations of \factor{Positioning} \x \factor{Vibratio
   \item \response{Realism}: How realistic was each vibrotactile rendering?
 \end{itemize}
 
-Finally, they rated the ten combinations of \factor{Positioning} \x factor{Hand} on a 7-item Likert scale (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely):
+Finally, they rated the ten combinations of \factor{Positioning} \x \factor{Hand} on a 7-item Likert scale (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely):
 \response{Positioning \x Hand Rating}: How much do you like each combination of vibrotactile location for each visual hand rendering?

4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-1-push.tex

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, wi
 It was also shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-9}, \pinf{0.001}).
 This indicates, as for the \chapref{visual_hand}, more confidence with a visual hand augmentation.
 
-\begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics.}[
+\begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the push task performance metrics.}[
     Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI for each vibrotactile positioning (a, b and c) or visual hand augmentation (d)
     and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
   ][

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

@@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.03}).
 
 \begin{subfigs}{results_questions}{Boxplots of the questionnaire results for each vibrotactile positioning.}[
     Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
-    Higher is better for \textbf{(a)} vibrotactile rendering rating, \textbf{(c)} usefulness and \textbf{(c)} fatigue.
-    Lower is better for \textbf{(d)} workload.
+    Higher is better for \textbf{(a)} vibrotactile rendering rating, \textbf{(c)} usefulness and \textbf{(d)} realism.
+    Lower is better for \textbf{(b)} workload.
   ]
   \subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}
   \subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}

4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/4-discussion.tex

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ This seemed inversely correlated with the performance, except for the \level{Now
 
 Considering the two tasks, no clear difference in performance or appreciation was found between the two contact vibration techniques.
 While the majority of participants discriminated the two different techniques, only a minority identified them correctly (\secref{technique_results}).
-It seemed that the Impact technique was sufficient to provide contact information compared to the \level{Distance} technique, which provided additional feedback on interpenetration, as reported by participants.
+It seemed that the \level{Impact} technique was sufficient to provide contact information compared to the \level{Distance} technique, which provided additional feedback on interpenetration, as reported by participants.
 
 No difference in performance was found between the two visual hand augmentations, except for the \level{Push} task, where the \level{Skeleton} hand rendering resulted again in longer contacts.
 Additionally, the \level{Skeleton} rendering was appreciated and perceived as more effective than having no visual hand augmentation, confirming the results of our \chapref{visual_hand}.
@@ -46,5 +46,5 @@ On the one hand, participants behave differently when the haptic rendering was g
 This behavior has likely given them a better experience of the tasks and more confidence in their actions, as well as leading to a lower interpenetration/force applied to the cube \cite{pacchierotti2015cutaneous}.
 On the other hand, the unfamiliarity of the contralateral hand positioning (\level{Opposite}) caused participants to spend more time understanding the haptic stimuli, which might have made them more focused on performing the task.
 In terms of the contact vibration technique, the continuous vibration technique on the finger interpenetration (\level{Distance}) did not make a difference to performance, although it provided more information.
-Participants felt that vibration bursts were sufficient (\level{Distance}) to confirm contact with the virtual object.
+Participants felt that vibration bursts were sufficient (\level{Impact}) to confirm contact with the virtual object.
 Finally, it was interesting to note that the visual hand augmentation was appreciated but felt less necessary when provided together with vibrotactile hand rendering, as the latter was deemed sufficient for acknowledging the contact.