Formatting

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-3-ranks.tex

@@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differe
 Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (\secref{metrics}):
 
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
-          %
-          Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
-          %
-          This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
-    \item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
-          %
-          No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
-          %
-          A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
+  \item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
+    %
+    Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
+    %
+    This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
+  \item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
+    %
+    No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
+    %
+    A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
 \end{itemize}