Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
In general, the achieved results show the good performance of the individuals us-
ing gamepad and voice commands. The behaviour with head movements reflects
more asymmetry and heterogeneous results, since several moderate and severe out-
liers exist in the time results. The time consumed to perform the sequences confirmed
the complexity of the tasks as can be seen in Fig. 7. In terms of average time between
buttons (Fig. 7) it is interesting to notice the results for the last sequence. Although it
is more complex and longer it has a positive asymmetry distribution. This probably
reveals that training may improve the user's performance.
In terms of errors, the third sequence presents a higher result with at least one fail.
The last sequence presented a case where 12 errors were committed.
Table 1.
Contingency table with the errors of sequences using gamepad
Number of Errors
Seq
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
1
30
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
31
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
20
7
3
1
1
0
1
0
4
27
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
Table 2 presents several descriptive statistics, such as central tendency (mean, me-
dian) and dispersion (standard deviation, minimum and maximum), for the trust level
of speech recognition.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for the trust level of speech recognition
Sentence
Mean
Median
S. Dev
Min
Max
“Go Forward”
95.36
95.50
0.51
93.9
95.9
“Go Back”
94.37
95.00
2.44
82.2
95.9
“Turn Right”
95.31
95.40
0.42
94.4
95.9
“Turn Left”
94.76
95.20
1.42
88.4
95.8
“Left Spin”
93.69
94.90
2.88
83.1
95.8
“Right Spin”
94.82
95.00
1.25
89.7
97.2
“Stop”
92.67
94.30
3.85
82.2
95.8
Total Sentences
94.43
94.99
1.08
92.24
95.93
The speech recognition has very good results. In fact, the minimum of minimums
was 82.2 for the sentences “Go Back” and “Stop”. The expression “Go Forward” has
the highest mean and median. The sentence “Stop” is more heterogeneous since it has
the higher standard deviation (3.85).
The paired samples t test was applied with a significance level of 0.05 to compare
the means of time using joystick and head movements. The null hypothesis was estab-
lished: the means of time to perform the target tasks with joystick and head move-
ments were equal. The alternative hypothesis is: the means of time to perform
the target tasks with joystick and head movements were different. The achieved pow-
er was of 0.80 with an effect size of 0.5. Table 3 contains the p values of the paired
