Fix in acronyms

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

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ In order not to influence the perception, as vision is an important source of in
 \label{apparatus}
 
 An experimental environment was created to ensure a similar visual rendering in \AR and \VR (\figref{renderings}).
-It consisted of a \qtyproduct{300 x 210 x 400}{\mm} medium-density fibreboard (MDF) box with a paper sheet glued inside and a \qtyproduct{50 x 15}{\mm} rectangle printed on the sheet to delimit the area where the tactile textures were rendered.
+It consisted of a \qtyproduct{300 x 210 x 400}{\mm} medium-density fibreboard box with a paper sheet glued inside and a \qtyproduct{50 x 15}{\mm} rectangle printed on the sheet to delimit the area where the tactile textures were rendered.
 A single light source of \qty{800}{\lumen} placed \qty{70}{\cm} above the table fully illuminated the inside of the box.
 Participants rated the roughness of the paper (without any texture augmentation) before the experiment on a 7-point Likert scale (1~=~Extremely smooth, 7~=~Extremely rough) as quite smooth (\mean{2.5}, \sd{1.3}).
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ They also wore headphones with a brown noise masking the sound of the voice-coil
 The user study was held in a quiet room with no windows.
 
 \begin{subfigs}{setup}{Visuo-haptic textures rendering setup. }[][
-  \item HoloLens~2 \OST-\AR headset, the two cardboard masks to switch the real or virtual environments with the same field of view, and the \ThreeD-printed piece for attaching the masks to the headset.
+  \item HoloLens~2 \OST-\AR headset, the two cardboard masks to switch the real or virtual environments with the same \FoV, and the \ThreeD-printed piece for attaching the masks to the headset.
   \item User exploring a virtual vibrotactile texture on a real sheet of paper.
   ]
   \subfigsheight{48.5mm}

3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ All pairwise differences were statistically significant.
 \label{response_time}
 
 A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering}, and a log transformation (as \response{Response Time} measures were gamma distributed) indicated a statistically significant effect on \response{Response Time} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{6.2}, \p{0.009}, see \figref{results/trial_response_times}).
-Reported response times are \GM.
+Reported response times are geometric means (GM).
 Participants took longer on average to respond with the \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{1.65}{\s} \ci{1.59}{1.72}) than with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{1.38}{\s} \ci{1.32}{1.43}), which is the only statistically significant difference (\ttest{19}{0.3}, \p{0.005}).
 The \level{Mixed} rendering was in between (\geomean{1.56}{\s} \ci{1.49}{1.63}).