# Enhancing Telexistence Control Through Assistive Manipulation and Haptic Feedback
## 6 Results and Analysis
### IVBO Results and Analysis
#### Change  
This section reports on evaluating the participants' level of embodiment of the virtual body by measuring their perception of changes to the virtual/robotic arm as changes to their own body. Table 7 provides the descriptive statistics for the change component of IVBO. Figure 13 illustrates that the presence of assistance or haptic feedback alone decreased the participants' feeling of embodiment compared to NN. However, adding haptics and assistance in the HA mode increased the change value compared to adding each separately, indicating that the combination of these factors positively affected the participants' sense of embodiment. The increased variability (higher SD and CV) in the HA mode suggests that combining haptic feedback with assistance leads to more diverse participant experiences, potentially due to individual differences in adapting to both stimuli simultaneously. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Comparison** & **Estimate** & **SE** & **df** & **t** & \(\mathbf{p}\) \\ \hline NA-NN & \(-\)0.113 & 0.058 & 33 & \(-\)1.947 & 0.060 \\ HN-NN & \(-\)0.012 & 0.058 & 33 & \(-\)0.205 & 0.839 \\ HA-NN & \(-\)0.039 & 0.058 & 33 & \(-\)0.666 & 0.510 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Simple contrast for control component of IVBO experiment. Figure 13: The responses for change component per condition (the asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance with \(p<0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Mode** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **SE** & **Coefficient of Variation** \\ \hline NN & 12 & 0.729 & 0.196 & 0.057 & 0.269 \\ NA & 12 & 0.616 & 0.188 & 0.054 & 0.306 \\ HN & 12 & 0.717 & 0.174 & 0.050 & 0.243 \\ HA & 12 & 0.690 & 0.191 & 0.055 & 0.277 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Descriptive data for control components for different modes. The results of the simple contrast analysis showed that adding assistance alone decreased the change value (t(33) = \(-\)2.636, \(p\) = 0.013), and adding haptics alone also reduced the change value (t(33) = \(-\)3.013, \(p\) = 0.005), both of which were significant as shown in Table 8. The combination of assistance and haptic feedback also decreased the change value but provided a better performance value than assistance alone (NA) or haptics alone. Therefore, adding haptic feedback can compensate for the decrease in the feeling of embodiment caused by assistance and result in better performance closer to the normal NN mode. 2. Accuracy  
In this study, our main objective was to assess how providing assistance and haptic feedback affected task performance accuracy in a telexience system. Descriptive statistics for accuracy across different modes are presented in Table 9. Our findings indicated that assistance significantly reduced the error rate from 0.572 in NN mode to 0.407 in NA mode. Furthermore, combining assistance with haptic feedback further increased accuracy, with the error rate reduced to 0.227 in HA mode, as illustrated in Figure 14. Using a simple contrast test, we found that the differences between all modes were significant. The provision of assistance alone significantly reduced the error rate (t(33) = \(-\)2.377, \(p\) = 0.026), while providing haptic feedback alone also reduced the error rate significantly (t(33) = \(-\)2.467, \(p\)  
(3) Time  
In this study, we examined the effect of assistance and haptic feedback on the efficiency of a telexistence system by measuring the time taken to complete a task. The descriptive statistics for accuracy across the different modes are presented in Table 11. The results showed that assistance reduced the time to complete the task from 23.193 in NN mode to 22.056 in NA mode while providing only haptic feedback decreased the time to 21.363.