Typo, remove consistent, rendering => feedback

2-perception/xr-perception/5-discussion.tex

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ A \PSE difference in the same range was found for perceived stiffness, with the
 Surprisingly, the \PSE of the \level{Real} rendering was shifted to the right (to be "rougher", \percent{7.9}) compared to the reference texture, whereas the \PSEs of the \level{Virtual} (\percent{5.1}) and \level{Mixed} (\percent{1.9}) renderings were perceived as \enquote{smoother} and closer to the reference texture (\figref{results/trial_predictions}).
 The sensitivity of participants to roughness differences also varied, with the \level{Real} rendering having the best \JND (\percent{26}), followed by the \level{Virtual} (\percent{30}) and \level{Mixed} (\percent{33}) renderings (\figref{results/trial_jnds}).
 These \JND values are in line with and at the upper end of the range of previous studies \cite{choi2013vibrotactile}, which may be due to the location of the actuator on the top of the finger middle phalanx, being less sensitive to vibration than the fingertip.
-Thus, compared to no visual rendering (\level{Real}), the addition of a visual rendering of the hand or environment reduced the roughness sensitivity (\JND) and the roughness perception (\PSE), as if the virtual vibrotactile textures felt \enquote{smoother}.
+Thus, compared to no visual rendering (\level{Real}), the addition of a visual feedback of the hand or environment reduced the roughness sensitivity (\JND) and the roughness perception (\PSE), as if the virtual vibrotactile textures felt \enquote{smoother}.
 
 Differences in user behaviour were also observed between the visual renderings (but not between the haptic textures).
 On average, participants responded faster (\percent{-16}), explored textures at a greater distance (\percent{+21}) and at a higher speed (\percent{+16}) without visual augmentation (\level{Real} rendering) than in \VR (\level{Virtual} rendering) (\figref{results_finger}).