Typo in percent

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

@@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
 and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{21.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
 
-Less contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\qty{-13}{\%}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.004});
-and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{None} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.006}) and \level{Occlusion} (\qty{-17}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
+Less contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\percent{-13}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.004});
+and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{None} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.006}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-17}, \p{0.001}).
 This result suggests that having no visible visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
 But, surprisingly, only \level{Tips} and \level{Mesh} were statistically significantly better, not \level{Contour} nor \level{Skeleton}.
 
@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
 and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
 
-It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001});
-shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.04});
-shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
+It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.001});
+shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-10}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.04});
+shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-8}, \pinf{0.001}).
 As for the \level{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
 The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping, maybe thanks to the fact that it provides information about both position and rotation of the tracked fingertips.
 

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

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ We considered two representative contact vibration techniques, \ie two ways of r
 The implementation of these two techniques have been tuned according to the results of a preliminary experiment.
 Three participants were asked to carry out a series of push and grasp tasks similar to those used in the actual experiment.
 Results showed that \percent{95} of the contacts between the fingertip and the virtual cube happened at speeds below \qty{1.5}{\m\per\s}.
-We also measured the perceived minimum amplitude to be 15~\% (\qty{0.6}{\g}) of the maximum amplitude of the motors we used.
+We also measured the perceived minimum amplitude to be \percent{15} (\qty{0.6}{\g}) of the maximum amplitude of the motors we used.
 For this reason, we designed the Impact vibration technique (Impa) so that contact speeds from \qtyrange{0}{1.5}{\m\per\s} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors.
 Similarly, we designed the distance vibration technique (Dist) so that interpenetrations from \qtyrange{0}{2.5}{\cm} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors, recalling that the virtual cube has an edge of \qty{5}{\cm}.