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

Typo

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-12-26 19:38:46 +01:00
parent 0cde049bfc
commit fe0da6a83b
15 changed files with 31 additions and 32 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

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

@@ -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.