The cursor has no color and gives no tactile feedback when it is not over a target.
When it hovers a target, it is colored and all the four actuators vibrate at \SI{50}{\hertz}.
-After \SI{1}{\ms} over the button, a ring is drawn around the cursor, and all the four actuators vibrate at \si{250}{\hertz} during \SI{150}{\ms}, then they stop for another \SI{150}{\ms}.
+After \SI{1}{\ms} over the button, a ring is drawn around the cursor, and all the four actuators vibrate at \SI{250}{\hertz} during \SI{150}{\ms}, then they stop for another \SI{150}{\ms}.
It warns the users that the animation is about to start.
-The animation vibrates the four actuators in a clockwise sequence at \SI{250}{\hertz} during \si{200}{\ms}, followed by a \SI{175}{\ms} pause.
+The animation vibrates the four actuators in a clockwise sequence at \SI{250}{\hertz} during \SI{200}{\ms}, followed by a \SI{175}{\ms} pause.
After this animation all the actuators vibrate at \SI{250}{\hertz} for \SI{200}{\ms}, then the target is activated.
Therefore, overall users had to hover a button during \SI{3}{\s} to activate it.
%\paragraph{Hypotheses}
We made the hypotheses that $H_1$ tactile feedback would increase the sensation of realism of the game because of the increased sensory stimulation; and $H_2$ tactile feedback would increase the users' sensation of control, because it provides them feedback about the way the game interpret their actions.
-\paragraph{Methodology}
+\subsubsection{Methodology}
40 participants took part of the experiment (mean age 24.7 years).
They were instructed to drive as many laps as possible in 10 minutes.
They were advised to avoid going out of the road since it notably reduces the speed.
We added three additional questions about tactile feedback adapted from questions about audio feedback: 1) How much did the tactile aspects of the environment involve you? 2) How well could you identify the vibrations? 3) How well could you localize vibrations?
We analyzed our results with T-tests, Pearson correlation and Cronbach’s alpha.
-\paragraph{Results}
+\subsubsection{Results}
\reffig{fig:carpresence} shows the results of the ITQ and PQ questionnaires.
The reliability of the ITQ questionaire is acceptable (\cralpha{0.75}).
Participants had a mean immersion tendency of $116.05/189$ in the \Tactile condition, and $117.5/189$ in the \NoTactile condition.
\label{fig:carpresence}
\end{figure}
-\paragraph{Discussion}
+\subsubsection{Discussion}
The absence of detected difference in \emph{Immersion Tendency} between the \Tactile and \NoTactile conditions with a small difference of means and a high p-value tends to indicate that there should not be a strong bias between the participant groups.
However, this is not a definitive argument, and the problem of splitting participants into homogeneous groups is still an open question and we are currently working on it.
However, later we investigated a related question with the effect of haptic feedback on the sense of embodiment, which we will discuss in \refsec{sec:embodiment}.
-\section{Modeling humans and interactive systems}
+\section{Computing and the sensorimotor loop}
-Humans and systems are the same kind of entity, interacting with the world in a similar way.
-Not because it has to be, but because we took inspiration from humans to design interactive systems.
-Or this is the most efficient, most obvious, or only way to do this.
+In the previous chapters we discussed several examples of how haptics as the sense of touch on one side, and haptics as the motor ability on the other side provide useful interactive properties.
+In the previous section we discussed the fact that the benefits of one of them cannot necessarily compensate the issues of the other.
+This observation is however only the tip of the iceberg.
+It is one of the many clues showing that inputs and outputs cannot be separated, the same way that our senses and abilities cannot be separated neither.
+
+One of the major difference between humans and systems is that humans are as they are, we cannot fundamentally change the way they function.
+Systems are different: we build them, therefore we can design and build them according to our needs.
+We have no reason to build a machine that has no purpose for us.
+We discuss below how the literature modeled the way humans work, and models for designing systems.
+Interestingly, both work in a similar way, with input, processing and output.
+The question is: is it like this because of an anthropocentric bias or because this is an operational optimum?
+I will discuss this question with my vision of how interactive systems work and the critical role of the sensorimotor loop.
+
+%Humans and systems are the same kind of entity, interacting with the world in a similar way.
+%Not because it has to be, but because we took inspiration from humans to design interactive systems.
+%Or this is the most efficient, most obvious, or only way to do this.
+
+\subsection{Human behavior}
+
+The strongest roots of the understanding of human behavior that had the most significance on HCI research, at least related to the topic of this manuscript, is Gibson's work.
+
+
+Perception/action cycle~\cite{gibson79}
-\subsection{Human side}
Animals such as humans explore their environment by probing them, and perceiving properties. Perception is a combination of actions, resulting sensations, and cognitions that mixes this with memory, experience, etc.
Human processor: perceptual system, motor system, cognitive system~\cite{card83}
-\subsection{System side}
+\subsection{System architectures and paradigms}
Curiosity~\cite{laversannefinot18}
projects / hdr.git / commitdiff