Fix warnings

1-background/related-work/3-augmented-reality.tex

@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ Similarly, in \secref{tactile_rendering} we described how a material property (\
   \subfig{jain2023ubitouch}
   \subfig{issartel2016tangible}
   \subfig{kahl2021investigation}
-  \subfig{pacchierotti2016hring_1}
+  \subfig{kahl2023using_1}
 \end{subfigs}
 
 \subsubsection{Manipulating with Virtual Hands}

2-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ It seems that the second dimension opposed textures that were perceived as hard
 Stiffness is indeed an important perceptual dimension of a material (\secref[related_work]{hardness}).% \cite{okamoto2013psychophysical,culbertson2014modeling}.
 
 \fig[0.6]{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}{
-  Correspondence analysis of the \level{Matching} task confusion matrix (\figref{matching_confusion_matrix}).
+  Correspondence analysis of the \level{Matching} task confusion matrix (\figref{results/matching_confusion_matrix}).
 }[
   %The haptic textures are represented as green squares, the haptic textures as red circles. %
   The closer the haptic and visual textures are, the more similar they were judged. %

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

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Conversely, the perceived latency of the virtual hand (\response{Hand Latency} q
 The \level{Mixed} rendering had the lowest \PSE and highest perceived latency, the \level{Virtual} rendering had a higher \PSE and lower perceived latency, and the \level{Real} rendering had the highest \PSE and no virtual hand latency (as it was not displayed).
 
 Our wearable visuo-haptic texture augmentation system, described in \chapref{vhar_system}, aimed to provide a coherent visuo-haptic renderings registered with the \RE.
-Yet, it involves different sensory interaction loops between the user's movements and the visuo-haptic feedback (\figref{method/diagram} and \figref[introduction]{interaction_loop}), which may not feel to be in synchronized with each other or with proprioception.
+Yet, it involves different sensory interaction loops between the user's movements and the visuo-haptic feedback (\figref[vhar_system]{diagram} and \figref[introduction]{interaction-loop}), which may not feel to be in synchronized with each other or with proprioception.
 %When a user runs their finger over a vibrotactile virtual texture, the haptic sensations and eventual display of the virtual hand lag behind the visual displacement and proprioceptive sensations of the real hand.
 %
 Thereby, we hypothesize that the differences in the perception of vibrotactile roughness are less due to the visual rendering of the hand or the environment and their associated differences in exploration behaviour, but rather to the difference in the \emph{perceived} latency between one's own hand (visual and proprioception) and the virtual hand (visual and haptic).

3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ We considered the same two \level{Push} and \level{Grasp} tasks as described in
   \item Push task: pushing the virtual cube along a table towards a target placed on the same surface.
   \item Grasp task: grasping and lifting the virtual cube towards a target placed on a \qty{20}{\cm} higher plane.
   ]
-  \subfig[0.45]{method/task-push}
+  \subfig[0.45]{method/task-push-2}
-  \subfig[0.45]{method/task-grasp}
+  \subfig[0.45]{method/task-grasp-2}
 \end{subfigs}
 
 To account for learning and fatigue effects, the order of the \factor{Positioning} conditions were counter-balanced using a balanced \numproduct{10 x 10} Latin square.
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ This design led to a total of 5 vibrotactile positionings \x 2 vibration contact
 \subsection{Apparatus and Procedure}
 \label{apparatus}
 
-Apparatus and experimental procedure were similar to the \chapref{visual_hand}, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{apparatus} and \secref[visual_hand]{protocol}, respectively.
+Apparatus and experimental procedure were similar to the \chapref{visual_hand}, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{apparatus} and \secref[visual_hand]{procedure}, respectively.
 We report here only the differences.
 
 We employed the same vibrotactile device used by \cite{devigne2020power}.

3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ And \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.01}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pi
 \paragraph{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
 \label{positioning_hand}
 
-There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Positioning-Overall}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
+There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
 Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
 \level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.003}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
 \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});