## 5 Study A--Without Tetralegia
### Study A--Performance Results  
The results of using the one-way ANOVA test with repeated measures on the performance metrics collected during study A can be seen in Table 1. The results show that the used control scheme has a statistically significant effect. This is true for all of the four tested scenarios and for all of the three measured performance metrics. The ANOVA test was hence followed up by a pairwise comparison between the three different control schemes as the selection of control schemes was found to have a statistically significant effect. The results of the pairwise comparison are shown in Table 2, where the mean percentage-wise performance increase is reported for each pair being compared, for each metric and for each of the four scenarios used in the study. For the comparison between the non-autonomous and the adaptive semi-automatic control, in Table 2a, it can be seen that adaptive semi-automatic control results in an improved performance across all 12 cases, with 9 of these being significant and another being close to the threshold of \(p<0.05\). It would hence suggest that the hypothesis, Hypothesis 1(H1): _The adaptive semi-autonomous control is better than the non-autonomous control_, is true with only a few exceptions in terms of the performance metrics. Looking at non-autonomous, i.e., manual, control versus fixed semi-autonomous control, in Table 2b the fixed semi-autonomous control results in the best performance in 10 out of 12 cases, with 7 of these being significant. The hypothesis, Hypothesis 1(H2): _The fixed semi-autonomous control is better than the non-autonomous control_, is hence not entirely implausible but it cannot be confirmed either. The cases where the fixed semi-autonomic control is significantly better than non-autonomous control are primarily the scenarios involving the strawberry. This scenario is also difficult as the wrist of the exoskeleton needs to be rotated to grasp the strawberry. It could hence indicate that the fixed semi-autonomous control is beneficial once the task reaches a certain level of difficulty. For the comparison between the adaptive and the fixed semi-autonomous control, shown in Table 2c, the adaptive scheme results in the best performance in 10 out of 12 cases, with five out of these cases being significant and another being close to \(p<0.05\) significance threshold. It is hence not possible to decisively confirm or deny the hypothesis, Hypothesis 1(H3): _The adaptive semi-autonomous control is better than the fixed semi-autonomous control_. However, it can be argued that this hypothesis is true for some scenarios, such as the one with a single strawberry which resulted in a significant improvement across all metrics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Time (Seconds)** & **Commonds (Integer)** & **Cartesian (Meters)** \\ \hline Bottle Single & F(2,18) = 14.35, \(p\) **< 0.001** & F(2,18) = 17.06, \(p\) **< 0.001** & F(2,18) = 28.1, \(p\) **< 0.001** \\ \hline Strawberry Single & F(2,18) = 65.49, \(p\) **< 0.001** & F(2,18) = 35.45, \(p\) **< 0.001** & F(2,18) = 16.11, \(p\) **< 0.001** \\ \hline Bottle Multi & F(2,18) = 5.67, \(p\) **= 0.012** & F(2,18) = 9.09, \(p\) **= 0.002** & F(2,18) = 7.0, \(p\) **= 0.006** \\ \hline Strawberry Multi & F(2,18) = 30.16, \(p\) **< 0.001** & F(2,18) = 17.26, \(p\) **< 0.001** & F(2,18) = 5.72, \(p\) **= 0.012** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Study A—Result of running a one-way ANOVA test with repeated measures for each of the four different scenarios and the three different performance metrics. Finally, the measured performance metrics from the last day of study A are shown as box plots in Figure 8. Each plot is split based on the four different scenarios used during the study. Any pairwise significance between the three control schemes is indicated with asterisks in the plots.