54 lines
2.6 KiB
TeX
54 lines
2.6 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: %
|
|
Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{24.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
|
|
and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{5.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
Skeleton was the fastest, more than None (\qty{+18}{\%}, \p{0.005}), Occlusion (\qty{+26}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Tips (\qty{+22}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), and Contour (\qty{+20}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
|
|
%
|
|
(1) sides E, W, and SW targets were the fastest;
|
|
%
|
|
(2) back and front NE, S, and SE were slower (\p{0.003});
|
|
%
|
|
and (3) back N and NW targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Contacts}
|
|
\label{push_contacts_count}
|
|
|
|
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
|
|
Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
|
|
and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{27.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} shows the Contacts for each Hand.
|
|
%
|
|
Less contacts were made with Skeleton than with None (\qty{-23}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Occlusion (\qty{-26}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Tips (\qty{-18}{\%}, \p{0.004}), and Contour (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.02});
|
|
%
|
|
and less with Mesh than with Occlusion (\qty{-14}{\%}, \p{0.04}).
|
|
%
|
|
This indicates how effective a visual hand rendering is: a lower result indicates a smoother ability to push and rotate properly the cube into the target, as one would probably do with a real cube.
|
|
%
|
|
Targets on the left (W) and the right (E, SW) were easier to reach than the back ones (N, NW, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
|
|
\label{push_time_per_contact}
|
|
|
|
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
|
|
Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{8.4}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
|
|
and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{19.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
|
|
%
|
|
It was shorter with None than with Skeleton (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}) and Mesh (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.03});
|
|
%
|
|
and shorter with Occlusion than with Tips (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p{0.002}), Contour (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p{0.001}), Skeleton (\qty{-14}{\%}, \p{0.001}), and Mesh (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
|
|
%
|
|
This result suggests that users pushed the virtual cube with more confidence with a visible visual hand rendering.
|
|
%
|
|
On the contrary, the lack of visual hand constrained the participants to give more attention to the cube's reactions.
|
|
%
|
|
Targets on the left (W, SW) and the right (E) sides had higher Timer per Contact than all the other targets (\p{0.005}).
|