[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/Paper paper.tex

[Janne V. Kujala]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Janne V. Kujala <address@hidden>        03/03/29 08:18:36

Modified files:
        Paper          : paper.tex 

Log message:
        exper

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex.diff?tr1=1.63&tr2=1.64&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex
diff -u manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.63 manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.64
--- manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.63    Sat Mar 29 07:18:43 2003
+++ manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex Sat Mar 29 08:18:36 2003
@@ -227,8 +227,6 @@
 
 \section{Related work}
 
-JVK
-
 \subsection{Texturing}
 
 The {\em texture} of a surface, taken literally, is its translation-invariant 
statistical microstructure.
@@ -617,7 +615,7 @@
 exactly the same feature vector} in the brain.
 Noise has no shape because there is no correlation between
 the local features; it is simply perceived as the distribution
-of texel colors and the overall frequency (the density of texels).
+of texel values and the overall frequency (the density of texels).
 
 From the 
 model 
@@ -1140,7 +1138,9 @@
 
 \subsection{Overall appearance of the resulting textures}
 
-JVK
+%XXX: Furthermore, because the texture appearance has no correlation
+%with the document content, 
+%the textures of any two important files are similar only by chance.
 
 We have chosen the texture coordinate mappings for different texture units 
 so that the resulting textures have 
@@ -1282,16 +1282,6 @@
 Our hypthesis is that the texture backgrounds are more recognizable
 than the solid colors.
 
-%and 
-%
-
-XXX: Furthermore, because the texture appearance has no correlation
-with the document content, 
-the textures of any two important files are similar only by chance.
-
-%We have conducted an experiment in a similar setting comparing
-%the recognition performance of our textures with solid color backgrounds.
-
 \subsubsection{Method}
 
 \emph{Participants.}
@@ -1318,8 +1308,6 @@
 
 \subsubsection{Results}
 
-The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tableresults} 
-
 \begin{table}
 \def\numres#1#2{#1 (#2s)}%
 \begin{center}
@@ -1348,24 +1336,28 @@
 %use mutual information or something like that. In colors, the subject
 %was basically guessing!!!
 
-Thus, the recognition performance of the textures was good while
-the solid colors do not have enough variation for unambiguous 
-recognition.
+The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tableresults}.
 A repeated measures analysis of variance indicates that
-the observed difference in the recognition performance is statistically 
+the observed superiority of the textures is statistically 
 significant [F(1,4) = 19.0, p = .012].
 % RT less for correct responses: [F(1,4) = 5.2, p = .082]
+%
+%The recognition performance of the textures was good while
+The solid colors do not seem to have enough variation for unambiguous 
+recognition.
 
 %Our experience shows that at least the most recurring textures 
 %are not only recognized but can 
 %also easily be associated with the document content.
+%
+Of course,
+the solid colors could facilitate recognition in the presence of other cues,
+such as the text of the document. However, the recognition of
+similar-looking fragments of documents would still depend on conscious effort 
+on the user's part ---
+exactly what the unique background textures were designed to avoid.
 
-The solid colors could be more recognizable with additional cues,
-such as the text of the document, but 
-
-- fragments and not title page etc...
-
-XXX: refs?
+%XXX: refs?
 
 %\section{Software availability}