tangible -> real

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

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ Thus, compared to no visual rendering (\level{Real}), the addition of a visual r
 Differences in user behaviour were also observed between the visual renderings (but not between the haptic textures).
 On average, participants responded faster (\percent{-16}), explored textures at a greater distance (\percent{+21}) and at a higher speed (\percent{+16}) without visual augmentation (\level{Real} rendering) than in \VR (\level{Virtual} rendering) (\figref{results_finger}).
 The \level{Mixed} rendering was always in between, with no significant difference from the other two.
-This suggests that touching a virtual vibrotactile texture on a tangible surface with a virtual hand in \VR is different from touching it with one's own hand: users were more cautious or less confident in their exploration in \VR.
+This suggests that touching a virtual vibrotactile texture on a real surface with a virtual hand in \VR is different from touching it with one's own hand: users were more cautious or less confident in their exploration in \VR.
 This does not seem to be due to the realism of the virtual hand or the environment, nor to the control of the virtual hand, all of which were rated high to very high by the participants (\secref{results_questions}) in both the \level{Mixed} and \level{Virtual} renderings.
 The evaluation of the vibrotactile device and the textures was also the same between the visual rendering, with a high sense of control, a good realism and a low perceived latency of the textures (\secref{results_questions}).
 Conversely, the perceived latency of the virtual hand (\response{Hand Latency} question) seemed to be related to the perceived roughness of the textures (with the \PSEs).