Add packages used for stats

3-perception/vhar-textures/2-experiment.tex

@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ For each trial of the \level{Matching} task, the chosen \response{Haptic Texture
 The \response{Completion Time} was also measured as the time between the visual texture display and the haptic texture selection.
 For each modality of the \level{Ranking} task, the \response{Rank} of each of the visual, haptic, or visuo-haptic pairs of the textures presented was recorded.
 
-\noindentskip After each of the two tasks, participants answered to the following 7-item Likert scale questions (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely):
+After each of the two tasks, participants answered to the following 7-item Likert scale questions (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely):
 \begin{itemize}
   \item \response{Haptic Difficulty}: How difficult was it to differentiate the tactile textures?
   \item \response{Visual Difficulty}: How difficult was it to differentiate the visual textures?
@@ -120,4 +120,7 @@ For each modality of the \level{Ranking} task, the \response{Rank} of each of th
   \item \response{Uncomfort}: How uncomfortable was to use the haptic device?
 \end{itemize}
 
-\noindentskip In an open question, participants also commented on their strategy for completing the \level{Matching} task (\enquote{How did you associate the tactile textures with the visual textures?}) and the \level{Ranking} task (\enquote{How did you rank the textures?}).
+In an open question, participants also commented on their strategy for completing the \level{Matching} task (\enquote{How did you associate the tactile textures with the visual textures?}) and the \level{Ranking} task (\enquote{How did you rank the textures?}).
+
+\comans{JG}{I suggest to also report on [...] the software packages used for statistical analysis (this holds also for the subsequent chapters).}{This has been added to all chapters where necessary.}
+The results were analyzed using R (v4.4) and the packages \textit{afex} (v1.4), \textit{ARTool} (v0.11), \textit{corrr} (v0.4), \textit{FactoMineR} (v2.11), \textit{lme4} (v1.1), and \textit{performance} (v0.13).

3-perception/xr-perception/3-experiment.tex

@@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ After each \factor{Visual Rendering} block of trials, participants rated their e
 They also assessed their workload with the NASA Task Load Index (\response{NASA-TLX}) questionnaire after each blocks of trials (\tabref{questions2}).
 For all questions, participants were shown only labels (\eg \enquote{Not at all} or \enquote{Extremely}) and not the actual scale values (\eg 1 or 5) \cite{muller2014survey}.
 
+The results were analyzed using R (v4.4) and the packages \textit{afex} (v1.4), \textit{ARTool} (v0.11), \textit{MixedPsy} (v1.2), \textit{lme4} (v1.1), and \textit{performance} (v0.13).
+
 \newcommand{\scalegroup}[2]{\multirow{#1}{1\linewidth}{#2}}
 \afterpage{
   \begin{tabwide}{questions1}

4-manipulation/visual-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -165,3 +165,5 @@ Participants also rated each visual hand augmentation individually on six questi
 \end{itemize}
 
 Finally, participants were encouraged to comment out loud on the conditions throughout the experiment, as well as in an open-ended question at its end, to gather additional qualitative information.
+
+The results were analyzed using R (v4.4) and the packages \textit{afex} (v1.4), \textit{ARTool} (v0.11), and \textit{performance} (v0.13).

4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -140,3 +140,5 @@ They then rated the ten combinations of \factor{Positioning} \x \factor{Vibratio
 
 Finally, they rated the ten combinations of \factor{Positioning} \x \factor{Hand} on a 7-item Likert scale (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely):
 \response{Positioning \x Hand Rating}: How much do you like each combination of vibrotactile location for each visual hand rendering?
+
+The results were analyzed using R (v4.4) and the packages \textit{afex} (v1.4), \textit{ARTool} (v0.11), and \textit{performance} (v0.13).