diff --git a/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex b/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex
index ce3c029..b167ce0 100644
--- a/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex
+++ b/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Also, almost all the texture pairs in the visuo-haptic textures ranking results
 However, no difference was found between the textures for each of the following groups: \{\level{Sandpaper~100}, \level{Cork}\}; \{\level{Cork}, \level{Brick~2}\}; and \{\level{Plastic Mesh~1}, \level{Velcro Hooks}, \level{Sandpaper~320}\}.
 The consensus between the participants was also high \kendall{0.77} \ci{0.74}{0.79}.
 
-Finally, the similarity of the three rankings of each participant was calculated (see \figref{results/rankings_texture}).
+Finally, the similarity of the three rankings of each participant was calculated (\figref{results/rankings_texture}).
 The \textit{Visuo-Haptic Textures Ranking} was on average highly similar to the \textit{Haptic Textures Ranking} (\kendall{0.79} \ci{0.72}{0.86}) and moderately to the \textit{Visual Textures Ranking} (\kendall{0.48} \ci{0.39}{0.56}).
 A Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that this difference was statistically significant (\wilcoxon{190}, \p{0.002}).
 These results indicate that the two haptic and visual modalities were integrated together, the resulting roughness ranking being between the two rankings of the modalities alone, but with haptics predominating.