\subsection{Push Task}
\label{sec:push}

\subsubsection{Completion Time}
\label{sec:push_tct}

On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{3.8}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{1}{1990}{3.9}, \p{0.05}).
%
Fingertips was slower than Proximal (\qty{+11}{\%}, \p{0.01}) or Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
There was no evidence of an advantage of Proximal or Opposite on No Vibrations, nor a disadvantage of Fingertips on No Vibrations.
%
Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with Proximal and Opposite.
%
The NW target volume was also faster than the SW (\p{0.05}).


\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{sec:push_contacts_count}

On the number of contacts, there was one statistically significant effect of %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{2.4}, \p{0.05}, see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}).
%
More contacts were made with Fingertips than with Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the target volume.


\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
\label{sec:push_time_per_contact}

On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects of %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and of Hand (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means})%
but not of the Positioning \x Hand interaction.
%
It was shorter with Fingertips than with Wrist (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.01}), or NoVi (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001});
%
and shorter with Proximal than with Wrist (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.005}), or No Vibrations (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, with faster repeated pushes with the Fingertips and Proximal positionings.
%
It was also shorter with None than with Skeleton (\qty{-9}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
This indicates, as for the first experiment, more confidence with a visual hand rendering.
