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.}