46 lines
2.2 KiB
TeX
46 lines
2.2 KiB
TeX
\subsection{Push Task}
|
|
\label{push}
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Completion Time}
|
|
\label{push_tct}
|
|
|
|
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
|
|
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{3.8}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
|
|
and Target (\anova{1}{1990}{3.9}, \p{0.05}).
|
|
%
|
|
Fingertips was slower than Proximal (\qty{+11}{\%}, \p{0.01}) or Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
|
|
%
|
|
There was no evidence of an advantage of Proximal or Opposite on No Vibrations, nor a disadvantage of Fingertips on No Vibrations.
|
|
%
|
|
Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with Proximal and Opposite.
|
|
%
|
|
The NW target volume was also faster than the SW (\p{0.05}).
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Contacts}
|
|
\label{push_contacts_count}
|
|
|
|
On the number of contacts, there was one statistically significant effect of %
|
|
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{2.4}, \p{0.05}, see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}).
|
|
%
|
|
More contacts were made with Fingertips than with Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
|
|
%
|
|
This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the target volume.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
|
|
\label{push_time_per_contact}
|
|
|
|
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects of %
|
|
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
|
|
and of Hand (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means})%
|
|
but not of the Positioning \x Hand interaction.
|
|
%
|
|
It was shorter with Fingertips than with Wrist (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.01}), or NoVi (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001});
|
|
%
|
|
and shorter with Proximal than with Wrist (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.005}), or No Vibrations (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, with faster repeated pushes with the Fingertips and Proximal positionings.
|
|
%
|
|
It was also shorter with None than with Skeleton (\qty{-9}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
This indicates, as for the first experiment, more confidence with a visual hand rendering.
|