Typo

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

@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ The overall workload (mean NASA-TLX score) was low (\num{21 \pm 14}), with no st
 The textures were also overall found to be very much caused by the finger movements (\response{Texture Agency}, \num{4.5 \pm 1.0}) with a very low perceived latency (\response{Texture Latency}, \num{1.6 \pm 0.8}), and to be quite realistic (\response{Texture Realism}, \num{3.6 \pm 0.9}) and quite plausible (\response{Texture Plausibility}, \num{3.6 \pm 1.0}).
 The vibrations were felt a slightly weak overall (\response{Vibration Strength}, \num{4.2 \pm 1.1}), and the vibrotactile device was perceived as neither distracting (\response{Device Distraction}, \num{1.2 \pm 0.4}) nor uncomfortable (\response{Device Discomfort}, \num{1.3 \pm 0.6}).
 
-Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the top of their finger (\response{Vibration Location}, \num{3.9 \pm 1.7}); the distribution of scores was split between the two poles of the scale with \level{Real} and \level{Mixed} renderings (\percent{42.5} more on surface or on finger top, \percent{15} neutral), but there was a trend towards the top of the finger in VR renderings (\percent{65} \vs \percent{25} more on surface and \percent{10} neutral), but this difference was not statistically significant neither.
+Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the top of their finger (\response{Vibration Location}, \num{3.9 \pm 1.7}); the distribution of scores was split between the two poles of the scale with \level{Real} and \level{Mixed} renderings (\percent{42.5} more on surface or on finger top, \percent{15} neutral), but there was a trend towards the top of the finger in \VR renderings (\percent{65} \vs \percent{25} more on surface and \percent{10} neutral), but this difference was not statistically significant neither.
 
 \begin{tab}{questions2}
   {NASA-TLX questions asked to participants after each \factor{Visual Rendering} block of trials.}

3-perception/xr-perception/6-conclusion.tex

@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@ Our results showed that the visual virtuality of the hand (real or virtual) and
 The textures were on average perceived as \enquote{rougher} when touched with the real hand alone than with a virtual hand either in \AR, with \VR in between.
 Similarly, the sensitivity to differences in roughness was better with the real hand, less good with \AR, and in between with \VR.
 Exploration behaviour was also slower in \VR than with real hand alone, although subjective evaluation of the texture was not affected.
-We hypothesised that this difference in perception was due to the \emph{perceived latency} between the finger movements and the different visual, haptic and proprioceptive feedbacks, which were the same in all visual renderings, but were more noticeable in \AR and \VR than without visual augmentation.
+We hypothesized that this difference in perception was due to the \emph{perceived latency} between the finger movements and the different visual, haptic and proprioceptive feedbacks, which were the same in all visual renderings, but were more noticeable in \AR and \VR than without visual augmentation.
 
 %We can outline recommendations for future \AR/\VR studies or applications using wearable haptics.
 This study suggests that attention should be paid to the respective latencies of the visual and haptic sensory feedbacks inherent in such systems and, more importantly, to \emph{the perception of their possible asynchrony}.
-Latencies should be measured \cite{friston2014measuring}, minimized to an acceptable level for users and kept synchronised with each other \cite{diluca2019perceptual}.
+Latencies should be measured \cite{friston2014measuring}, minimized to an acceptable level for users and kept synchronized with each other \cite{diluca2019perceptual}.
 It seems also that the visual aspect of the hand or the environment on itself has little effect on the perception of haptic feedback, but the degree of visual virtuality can affect the asynchrony perception of the latencies, even though the latencies remain identical.
 When designing for wearable haptics or integrating it into \AR/\VR, it seems important to test its perception in real, augmented and virtual environments.
 %With a better understanding of how visual factors influence the perception of haptically augmented real objects, the many wearable haptic systems that already exist but have not yet been fully explored with \AR can be better applied and new visuo-haptic renderings adapted to \AR can be designed.