Texte intégral / Full text (pdf, 20 MiB) - Infoscience - EPFL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6. Experimental Validations - Social Phobia Interest Engagement Friendliness Normality Bored 5.00(0.00) 4.92(0.29) 3.92(0.90) 3.83(0.94) Attentive 1.67(0.49) 1.92(0.79) 2.33(0.65) 2.50(1.00) Random 3.50(0.80) 3.58(1.08) 2.92(1.00) 3.33(0.98) Tracked all 3.50(1.51) 3.67(1.07) 3.42(0.79) 3.17(1.03) Tracked looked 2.71(1.49) 3.29(1.11) 3.29(0.95) 3.00(1.00) Tracked looked (absolute) 2.<strong>20</strong>(1.30) 2.80(0.84) 3.00(0.71) 2.80(1.09) Table 6.11: Mean values to the four questions. The values in parentheses are the SDs to the mean scores obtained by the 12 subjects. “Tracked all” are the mean values for the 12 subjects. “Tracked looked” are the mean values without considering subjects who did not look during the speaking exercise (7 out of the 12). “Tracked looked (absolute)” are the mean values considering only the subjects who looked at the character throughout the whole talking exercise (5 out of 12). looked at in order to avoid the subject being even more stressed than what she already was. This part of the exposure session lasted for 5 − 6 minutes. The therapist then manually triggered the change in character behavior in order to make it lose its attention and seem bored. It stayed in this mode for 30 seconds to 1 minute. Then, as it triggered eye contact from the subject, the character became attentive once again. Finally, the character remained attentive until the end of the exposure session, which lasted approximately 1 minute more. Once the exposure session was over, we asked the subject to give us her feedback, her impressions on the virtual character and how the session had gone. 6.4.3 Results In this section, we first present the results we have obtained from the evaluation of the 12 healthy subjects who tested our application. We then present the results to our case study, in which a young girl suffering from Asperger syndrome tested our application. 6.4.3.1 Healthy Subjects The values we discuss in this section are the overall mean ratings of the 12 subjects for each of the 4 scenes (bored, attentive, random, and tracked). The mean results to the first question are shown in the first row of Table 6.11 and are depicted on the top left of Figure 6.12. They express the interest or indifference of the characters on screen. The mean for the bored version of the scene was of 5 which is the highest possible value and corresponds to a very indifferent evaluation. The attentive version obtained a mean value of 1.67 which corresponds to an evaluation between fairly and very interested. For the random version and the tracked version, both the mean scores were of 3.50. However, when we take out the people who were not looking at the character on screen when talking to him/her (7 subjects out of 12 remaining), this tracked score falls to 2.71. This evaluates to neither interested nor indifferent. Finally, when we only consider the subjects who were looking at the character throughout the whole talking exercise (5 subjects out of 12), this value further falls to 2.2, and evaluates to fairly interested. 98
6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction Figure 6.12: Graphical representations of the results for interest, engagement, and normality. The brackets indicate the SDs for each mean. For the second question, shown in the second row of Table 6.11, and depicted on the top right of Figure 6.12, the results express the engagement or distraction of the characters on screen. The mean value for the bored version was of 4.92, which corresponds to very distracted. The mean value for the attentive version was of 1.92 which corresponds to fairly engaged. The mean value for the random version of the scene was of 3.58, which corresponds to a slightly distracted behavior. Finally, for the tracked version of the scene, this value was of 3.67 when considering all subjects, 3.29 when taking out subjects who were not looking at the character during the talking exercise and 2.80 when only considering the subjects who were looking at the character on screen during the whole talking exercise. This evaluation corresponded to fairly distracted when considering all subjects but to slightly engaged when considering only the subjects who looked at the character throughout the talking exercise. The results to the third question, concerning the friendliness of the characters on screen, are shown in the third row of Table 6.11. However, this question was asked only in order to distract the subjects from the other questions relative to the experiment. We therefore do not discuss the results to this question any further. The last row of Table 6.11 and the bottom left chart of Figure 6.12 show the results to the fourth question, determining whether the character on screen was behaving in a normal or abnormal way with regards to what the subject was telling him/her. Here, the score for the bored version was of 3.83, which corresponds to fairly abnormal. The score for the attentive version was of 2.50, which corresponds to quite normal. The random version scored 3.33, which corresponds to slightly abnormal. Finally, the tracked version scored 3.17 when considering all subjects, 3.00 when taking out subjects who did not look at the character, and 99
Page 1:
Simulating Interactions with Virtua
Page 4 and 5:
3.2.4 Scripts . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 6 and 7:
7.3 Experimental Protocol . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
Résumé La Réalité Virtuelle (RV
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Context
Page 13 and 14:
1.3. Contributions in areas of dail
Page 15 and 16:
1.5. Organization of this Document
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 2 State of the Art 2.1 Virt
Page 19 and 20:
2.1. Virtual Reality Exposure Thera
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
2.2. Models of Visual Attention Fig
Page 31 and 32:
2.3. Motion Editing Peters and O’
Page 33 and 34:
2.3. Motion Editing Figure 2.10: Bi
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 3 VRET For Social Phobia Mu
Page 37 and 38:
3.2. Creating Scenarios For VRET Fi
Page 39 and 40:
3.3. Eye-Tracking For Interaction F
Page 41 and 42:
3.4. Results can thus determine whe
Page 43 and 44:
3.5. Gaze Behaviors to Enhance Char
Page 45 and 46:
3.6. Discussion 3.6 Discussion Filt
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTER 4 Simulating Visual Attenti
Page 49 and 50: 4.2. Walking Motion Reconstruction
Page 51 and 52: 4.3. Automatic Interest Point Detec
Page 53 and 54: 4.3. Automatic Interest Point Detec
Page 55 and 56: 4.4. Automatic Motion Adaptation fo
Page 57 and 58: 4.4. Automatic Motion Adaptation fo
Page 59 and 60: 4.5. Results Figure 4.4: Illustrati
Page 61 and 62: 4.6. Discussion Cs 100 200 300 400
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 5 Interaction with Virtual
Page 65 and 66: 5.2. Tracking in the CAVE animation
Page 67 and 68: 5.3. Interest Point Definition In t
Page 69 and 70: 5.4. Automatic Motion Adaptation Th
Page 71 and 72: 5.6. Results Figure 5.4: Results ob
Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 6 Experimental Validations
Page 75 and 76: 6.2. Clinical Study on VRET for Soc
Page 85 and 86: 6.3. Eye-tracking as Assessment and
Page 95 and 96: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction 6
Page 97: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction D
Page 101 and 102: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction F
Page 103 and 104: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction t
Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER 7 Experimental Validation -
Page 107 and 108: 7.3. Experimental Protocol Figure 7
Page 109 and 110: 7.4. Results User-centered Interest
Page 111 and 112: 7.4. Results 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Page 113 and 114: 7.4. Results 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Page 115 and 116: 7.4. Results 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-
Page 117 and 118: 7.6. Conclusion percentage of the v
Page 119 and 120: CHAPTER 8 Conclusion In the past de
Page 121 and 122: 8.2. Perspectives and Future Work 8
Page 123 and 124: APPENDIX A Ethics Commission Reques
Page 125 and 126: - Cette condition persiste pendant
Page 127 and 128: laires sur un groupe de personnes s
Page 129 and 130: Richard G Heimberg, Social Phobia -
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX B Fearful Situation Docume
Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX C List of Abbreviations AS
Page 135 and 136: APPENDIX D Glossary Acrophobia: acr
Page 137 and 138: List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES 2.1
Page 139 and 140: List of Figures 6.3 Results to the
Page 141 and 142: Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY American
Page 143 and 144: Bibliography Dassault Systèmes. ht
Page 145 and 146: Bibliography Iscan. http://www.isca
Page 147 and 148: Bibliography A. Mühlberger, M.J. W
Page 149 and 150:
Bibliography B.O. Rothbaum, L.F. Ho
Page 151:
WHO. The ICD-10 Classification Of M
Page 154 and 155:
154
show all

Texte intégral / Full text (pdf, 20 MiB) - Infoscience - EPFL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?