[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/Paper Makefile paper.tex

[Tuomas J. Lukka]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Tuomas J. Lukka <address@hidden>        03/03/29 03:17:57

Modified files:
        Paper          : Makefile paper.tex 

Log message:
        Make the table a real table

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/Paper/Makefile.diff?tr1=1.7&tr2=1.8&r1=text&r2=text
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex.diff?tr1=1.57&tr2=1.58&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/Paper/Makefile
diff -u manuscripts/Paper/Makefile:1.7 manuscripts/Paper/Makefile:1.8
--- manuscripts/Paper/Makefile:1.7      Mon Mar 24 11:24:27 2003
+++ manuscripts/Paper/Makefile  Sat Mar 29 03:17:57 2003
@@ -6,11 +6,13 @@
 LATEXCMD=
 endif
 
-all: pipe.1 perceptual-model.eps pipeline.eps buoyoing.1 buoyoing.5 zipf.ps 
zipfarea.1
+all: paper.ps
+       dvips paper
+
+paper.dvi: pipe.1 perceptual-model.eps pipeline.eps buoyoing.1 buoyoing.5 
zipf.ps zipfarea.1 paper.tex
        latex "${LATEXCMD} paper"
        BIBINPUTS=..:$$BIBINPUTS bibtex paper
        latex "${LATEXCMD} paper"
-       dvips paper
 
 pipe.1: pipe.mp
        TEX=latex mpost pipe
Index: manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex
diff -u manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.57 manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.58
--- manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.57    Sat Mar 29 03:04:36 2003
+++ manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex Sat Mar 29 03:17:57 2003
@@ -1233,8 +1233,21 @@
 and that recognition
 performance decreases very little over time.
 
+In order to evaluate the recognizability of our procedurally generated
+textures, 
+
+- need to compare to something
+
+- images not good, can't generate infinite supply easily, too much
+  semantics
+
+- thus, use solid colors even though know not really good.
+
 We have conducted an experiment in a similar setting comparing
 the recognition performance of our textures with solid color backgrounds.
+
+
+
 Five participants performed the experiment in both conditions
 (in random order). 
 
@@ -1252,19 +1265,26 @@
 having the participant answer ``old'' or ``new'' for each one. 
 The time for answers was not limited.
 
-The results are summarized below 
-(percentage of trials and reaction time in seconds): 
+The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tableresults} 
+
+\begin{table}
+\def\numres#1#2{#1 (#2s)}%
 \begin{center}
-\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
-      & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{textures \% (RT)}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{colors \% 
(RT)} \\
+\begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc}
+      & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\sc textures}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\sc colors} \\
       & correct  & incorrect & correct & incorrect \\
 \hline
-old   & 84 (3.0) & 16 (5.6) & 43 (3.4) & 57 (4.0) \\
-new   & 72 (2.6) & 28 (5.5) & 71 (2.8) & 29 (4.1) \\
+seen   & \numres{84}{3.0} & \numres{16}{5.6} & \numres{43}{3.4} & 
\numres{57}{4.0} \\
+not seen   & \numres{72}{2.6} & \numres{28}{5.5} & \numres{71}{2.8} & 
\numres{29}{4.1} \\
 \hline
-total & 78 (2.8) & 22 (5.5) & 57 (3.1) & 43 (4.1)
+total & \numres{78}{2.8} & \numres{22}{5.5} & \numres{57}{3.1} & 
\numres{43}{4.1}
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
+\caption{
+\label{tableresults}
+(percentage of trials and reaction time in seconds): 
+}
+\end{table}
 
 %80, 53 fail to bring out the results correctly. Should
 %use mutual information or something like that. In colors, the subject