33 lines
1.4 KiB
TeX
33 lines
1.4 KiB
TeX
\subsubsection{Ranking}
|
|
\label{sec:ranks}
|
|
|
|
\begin{subfigs}{ranks}{%
|
|
Experiment \#1. Boxplots of the ranking (lower is better) of each visual hand rendering
|
|
%
|
|
and pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment:
|
|
%
|
|
** is \pinf{0.01} and * is \pinf{0.05}.
|
|
}
|
|
\subfig[0.24]{results/Ranks-Push}[Push Task]
|
|
\subfig[0.24]{results/Ranks-Grasp}[Grasp Task]
|
|
\end{subfigs}
|
|
|
|
\figref{ranks} shows the ranking of each visual hand rendering for the Push and Grasp tasks.
|
|
%
|
|
Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (see \secref{metrics}):
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
|
|
%
|
|
Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
|
|
%
|
|
This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
|
|
\item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
|
|
%
|
|
No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
|
|
%
|
|
A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|