Researcher profile

Jean François Petiot

Jean François Petiot contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

Assessing the differences between numerical methods and real experiments for the evaluation of reach envelopes of the human body

The use of static human body dimensions to assess the human accessibility is an essential part of an ergonomic approach in user-centered design. Assessments of reach capability are commonly performed by exercising external anthropometry of human body parts, which may be found in anthropometric databases, to numerically define the reach area of an intended user population. The result is a reach envelope determined entirely by the segment lengths, without taking into account external variables, as the nature of the task or the physical capacities of the subject, which may influence the results. Considering the body as a simple assembly of static parts of different anthropometry is limiting. In this paper, the limit of validity of this approach is assessed by comparing the reach envelopes obtained by this method to those obtained with a simple two-dimensional experimental reaching task of a panel of subjects. Forty subjects experimentally evaluated the reach, first with the body constrained and second unconstrained. Results were recorded and compared with those obtained numerically with a model, based on their own anthropometric characteristics, previously measured. A statistical study of the results allowed the definition of the shape of a confidence bound containing the real reach envelope. The results indicated important differences between the experiment and the numerical evaluation of the reach envelope.

preprint2015arXiv

Assessing the differences between numerical methods, CAD evaluations and real experiments for the assessement of reach envelopes of the human body

Numerical models and computer-aided modeling software are tools commonly used to assess the accessibility of an environment, based on static human body dimensions. In this paper, the limits of validity of these approaches are assessed by comparing the reach envelopes obtained by these methods to those obtained experimentally. First, the accessibility areas of forty adult subjects, which may correspond to the distance of reachability of products, were evaluated by performing an accessibility task comprising 168 reach points. Second, anthropometric characteristics of participants were recorded and used to perform the reach assessment by a numerical method, and then by a CAD-based analysis, where the reach was predicted using the software's maximum reach-envelope generation. In spite of the simple nature of the presented design problem (two-dimensional), the results show important differences between the three methods. The study of the number of reached points shows that the CAD-based assessment provides more accurate results than the numerical model. Nevertheless, the shapes envelopes comparison indicates that the maximum reach envelopes obtained with the CAD analysis are not always consistent with those obtained experimentally, closely linked to the hand location. Results indicate that the CAD model used to obtain maximum reaches gave predictions that underestimate the reach ability.

preprint2015arXiv

Intervalles de confiance pour une proportion : lesquels doit-on enseigner ?

The most frequently taught confidence intervals for a proportion are the classical Wald (Ws) and the Clopper-Pearson (CP) ones because of the simplicity of their definition. However, their actual coverage probability of the parameter p is erratic, often quite far from the nominal probability which is aimed at. Other confidence intervals are clearly preferable to the former, but their expression is generally complex and they are difficult to interpret. But nevertheless, through a simple modification of the definition of the Ws and CP intervals, we obtain some confidence intervals with much better coverage probabilities. Namely, these confidence intervals are the Agresti-Coull and Mid-P intervals that we present here. We highly recommend them in a basic Statistics course.