WIP visuo-haptic hand

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
 It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001});
 shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.04});
 shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
-As for the \factor{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
+As for the \level{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
 The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping, maybe thanks to the fact that it provides information about both position and rotation of the tracked fingertips.
 
 This time was the shortest on the front \level{F} than on the other target volumes (\pinf{0.001}).
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ The \level{Mesh} rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to partic
 The \response{Grip Aperture} was longer on the right-front (\level{RF}) target volume, indicating a higher confidence, than on back and side targets (\level{R}, \level{RB}, \level{B}, \level{L}, \p{0.03}).
 
 \begin{subfigs}{grasp_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics for each visual hand rendering.}[
-    Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI
+    Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI
     and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
   ][
   \item Time to complete a trial.