73 lines
5.2 KiB
TeX
73 lines
5.2 KiB
TeX
\subsection{Discrimination of Vibration Techniques}
|
|
\label{technique_results}
|
|
|
|
Seven participants were able to correctly discriminate between the two vibration techniques, which they described as the contact vibration (being the \level{Impact} technique) and the continuous vibration (being the \level{Distance} technique) respectively.
|
|
Seven participants said they only felt differences of intensity with a weak one (being the \level{Impact} technique) and a strong one (being the \level{Distance} technique).
|
|
Six participants did not notice the difference between the two vibration techniques.
|
|
There was no evidence that the ability to discriminate the vibration techniques was correlated with the participants' haptic or \AR/\VR expertise (\pearson{0.4}), nor that it had a statistically significant effect on the performance in the tasks.
|
|
As the tasks had to be completed as quickly as possible, we hypothesize that little attention was devoted to the different vibration techniques.
|
|
Indeed, some participants explained that the contact cues were sufficient to indicate whether the cube was being properly pushed or grasped.
|
|
Although the \level{Distance} technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetration of the finger with the cube, it was not strictly necessary to manipulate the cube quickly.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Questionnaire}
|
|
\label{questions}
|
|
|
|
\figref{results_questions} shows the questionnaire results for each vibrotactile positioning.
|
|
Questionnaire results were analyzed using \ART non-parametric \ANOVA (\secref{metrics}).
|
|
Statistically significant effects were further analyzed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment.
|
|
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for main effects and \ART contrasts procedure for interaction effects.
|
|
Only significant results are reported.
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Vibrotactile Rendering Rating}
|
|
\label{vibration_ratings}
|
|
|
|
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{27.0}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}).
|
|
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.01}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.007}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
And \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.01}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
|
|
\label{positioning_hand}
|
|
|
|
There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.003}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
And \level{Skeleton} more than \level{No Hand} (\pinf{0.001}).
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Workload}
|
|
\label{workload}
|
|
|
|
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}).
|
|
Participants found \level{Opposite} more fatiguing than \level{Fingertips} (\p{0.01}), \level{Proximal} (\p{0.003}), and \level{Wrist} (\p{0.02}).
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Usefulness}
|
|
\label{usefulness}
|
|
|
|
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{38.0}, \p{0.041}, see \figref{results/Question-Usefulness-Positioning-Overall}).
|
|
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most useful, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.02}), \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.008}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.008}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.004}).
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Realism}
|
|
\label{realism}
|
|
|
|
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{28.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Realism-Positioning-Overall}).
|
|
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most realistic, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.05}), \level{Wrist} (\p{0.004}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
|
|
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.
|
|
]
|
|
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}
|
|
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}
|
|
\par
|
|
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Usefulness-Positioning-Overall}
|
|
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Realism-Positioning-Overall}
|
|
\end{subfigs}
|