Typo

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

@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ The compiled application ran directly on the HoloLens~2 at \qty{60}{FPS}.
 
 The default 3D hand model from MRTK was used for all visual hand renderings.
 %
-By changing the material properties of this hand model, we were able to achieve the six renderings shown in \figref{shands}.
+By changing the material properties of this hand model, we were able to achieve the six renderings shown in \figref{hands}.
 %
 A calibration was performed for every participant, so as to best adapt the size of the visual hand rendering to their real hand.
 %

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-1-push.tex

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-\subsubsection{Push Task}
+\subsection{Push Task}
 \label{sec:push}
 
-\subsubsubsection{Completion Time}
+\subsubsection{Completion Time}
 \label{sec:push_tct}
 
 On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
 and (3) back N and NW targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
 
 
-\subsubsubsection{Contacts}
+\subsubsection{Contacts}
 \label{sec:push_contacts_count}
 
 On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ This indicates how effective a visual hand rendering is: a lower result indicate
 Targets on the left (W) and the right (E, SW) were easier to reach than the back ones (N, NW, \pinf{0.001}).
 
 
-\subsubsubsection{Time per Contact}
+\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
 \label{sec:push_time_per_contact}
 
 On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %

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

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-\subsubsection{Grasp Task}
+\subsection{Grasp Task}
 \label{sec:grasp}
 
-\subsubsubsection{Completion Time}
+\subsubsection{Completion Time}
 \label{sec:grasp_tct}
 
 On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect %
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ but not of Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{1.8}, \p{0.1}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Comple
 Targets on the back and the left (N, NW, and W) were slower than targets on the front (SW, S, and SE, \p{0.003}) {except for} NE (back-right) which was also fast.
 
 
-\subsubsubsection{Contacts}
+\subsubsection{Contacts}
 \label{sec:grasp_contacts_count}
 
 On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ But, surprisingly, only Tips and Mesh were statistically significantly better, n
 Targets on the back and left were more difficult (N, NW, and W) than targets on the front (SW, S, and SE, \pinf{0.001}).
 
 
-\subsubsubsection{Time per Contact}
+\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
 \label{sec:grasp_time_per_contact}
 
 On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ The Tips rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping,
 This time was the shortest on the front S than on the other target volumes (\pinf{0.001}).
 
 
-\subsubsubsection{Grip Aperture}
+\subsubsection{Grip Aperture}
 \label{sec:grasp_grip_aperture}
 
 On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two

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

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\subsubsection{Ranking}
+\subsection{Ranking}
 \label{sec:ranks}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{ranks}{%

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-4-questions.tex

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\subsubsection{Questionnaire}
+\subsection{Questionnaire}
 \label{sec:questions}
 
 \begin{subfigswide}{questions}{%

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

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \chapter{Visual Rendering of the Hand in Augmented Reality}
-\mainlabel{visual-hand}
+\mainlabel{visual_hand}
 
 \chaptertoc