Typo

4-manipulation/visual-hand/4-discussion.tex

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 We evaluated six visual hand augmentations, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two virtual object manipulation tasks in \AR.
 
 During the \level{Push} task, the \level{Skeleton} hand rendering was the fastest (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime}), as participants employed fewer and longer contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount} and \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime}).
-Participants consistently used few and continuous contacts for all visual hand augmentations (Fig. 3b), with only less than ten trials, carried out by two participants, quickly completed with multiple discrete touches.
+%Participants consistently used few and continuous contacts for all visual hand augmentations (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount}), with only less than ten trials, carried out by two participants, quickly completed with multiple discrete touches.
 However, during the \level{Grasp} task, despite no difference in \response{Completion Time}, providing no visible hand rendering (\level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings) led to more failed grasps or cube drops (\figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount} and \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime}).
 Indeed, participants found the \level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings less effective (\figref{results/Ranks-Grasp}) and less precise (\figref{results_questions}).
 To understand whether the participants' previous experience might have played a role, we also carried out an additional statistical analysis considering \VR experience as an additional between-subjects factor, \ie \VR novices vs. \VR experts (\enquote{I use it every week}, see \secref{participants}).