Typo visual hand

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

@@ -1,16 +1,14 @@
 \subsection{Grasp Task}
 \label{grasp}
 
-\subsubsection{Completion Time}
-\label{grasp_tct}
+\paragraph{Completion Time}
 
 On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect %
 of \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{37.2}, \pinf{0.001}) %
 but not of \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{1.8}, \p{0.1}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
 Targets on the back and the left (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \level{L}) were slower than targets on the front (\level{LF}, \level{F}, and \level{RF}, \p{0.003}) {except for} \level{RB} (back-right) which was also fast.
 
-\subsubsection{Contacts}
-\label{grasp_contacts_count}
+\paragraph{Contacts}
 
 On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -23,8 +21,7 @@ But, surprisingly, only \level{Tips} and \level{Mesh} were statistically signifi
 
 Targets on the back and left were more difficult (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \level{L}) than targets on the front (\level{LF}, \level{F}, and \level{RF}, \pinf{0.001}).
 
-\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
-\label{grasp_time_per_contact}
+\paragraph{Time per Contact}
 
 On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -38,8 +35,7 @@ The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the gr
 
 This time was the shortest on the front \level{F} than on the other target volumes (\pinf{0.001}).
 
-\subsubsection{Grip Aperture}
-\label{grasp_grip_aperture}
+\paragraph{Grip Aperture}
 
 On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
 statistically significant effects: %