Remove "see" before section or figure reference

2-perception/ar-textures/4-discussion.tex

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ The visual textures were displayed statically on the tangible surface, while the
 %
 In addition, the interaction with the textures was designed to be as natural as possible, without imposing a specific speed of finger movement, as in similar studies~\cite{asano2015vibrotactile,friesen2024perceived}.
 
-In the matching task, participants were not able to effectively match the original visual and haptic texture pairs (see \figref{results_matching_ranking}, left), except for the Coffee Filter texture, which was the smoothest both visually and haptically.
+In the matching task, participants were not able to effectively match the original visual and haptic texture pairs (\figref{results_matching_ranking}, left), except for the Coffee Filter texture, which was the smoothest both visually and haptically.
 %
 However, almost all visual textures, except Sandpaper~100, were matched with at least one haptic texture at a level above chance.
 %
@@ -23,13 +23,13 @@ Indeed, the majority of users explained that, based on the roughness, granularit
 %
 Several strategies were used, as some participants reported using vibration frequency and/or amplitude to match a haptic texture.
 %
-It should be noted that the task was rather difficult (see \figref{results_questions}), as participants had no prior knowledge of the textures, there were no additional visual cues such as the shape of an object, and the term \enquote{roughness} had not been used by the experimenter prior to the ranking task.
+It should be noted that the task was rather difficult (\figref{results_questions}), as participants had no prior knowledge of the textures, there were no additional visual cues such as the shape of an object, and the term \enquote{roughness} had not been used by the experimenter prior to the ranking task.
 
-The correspondence analysis (see \figref{results_similarity}, left) highlighted that participants did indeed match visual and haptic textures primarily on the basis of their perceived roughness (60\% of variance), which is in line with previous perception studies on real~\cite{baumgartner2013visual} and virtual~\cite{culbertson2014modeling} textures.
+The correspondence analysis (\figref{results_similarity}, left) highlighted that participants did indeed match visual and haptic textures primarily on the basis of their perceived roughness (60\% of variance), which is in line with previous perception studies on real~\cite{baumgartner2013visual} and virtual~\cite{culbertson2014modeling} textures.
 %
-The rankings (see \figref{results_matching_ranking}, right) confirmed that the participants all perceived the roughness of haptic textures very similarly, but that there was less consensus for visual textures, which is also in line with roughness rankings for real haptic and visual textures~\cite{bergmanntiest2007haptic}.
+The rankings (\figref{results_matching_ranking}, right) confirmed that the participants all perceived the roughness of haptic textures very similarly, but that there was less consensus for visual textures, which is also in line with roughness rankings for real haptic and visual textures~\cite{bergmanntiest2007haptic}.
 %
-These results made it possible to identify and name groups of textures in the form of clusters, and to construct confusion matrices between these clusters and between visual texture ranks with haptic clusters, showing that participants consistently identified and matched haptic and visual textures (see \figref{results_clusters}).
+These results made it possible to identify and name groups of textures in the form of clusters, and to construct confusion matrices between these clusters and between visual texture ranks with haptic clusters, showing that participants consistently identified and matched haptic and visual textures (\figref{results_clusters}).
 %
 Interestingly, 30\% of the matching variance was captured with a second dimension, opposing the roughest textures (Metal Mesh, Sandpaper~100), and to a lesser extent the smoothest (Coffee Filter, Sandpaper~320), with all other textures.
 %
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ One hypothesis is that this dimension could be the perceived stiffness of the te
 %
 Stiffness is, with roughness, one of the main characteristics perceived by the vision and touch of real materials~\cite{baumgartner2013visual,vardar2019fingertip}, but also on virtual haptic textures~\cite{culbertson2014modeling,degraen2019enhancing}.
 %
-The last visuo-haptic roughness ranking (see \figref{results_matching_ranking}, right) showed that both haptic and visual sensory information were well integrated as the resulting roughness ranking was being in between the two individual haptic and visual rankings.
+The last visuo-haptic roughness ranking (\figref{results_matching_ranking}, right) showed that both haptic and visual sensory information were well integrated as the resulting roughness ranking was being in between the two individual haptic and visual rankings.
 %
 Several strategies were reported: some participants first classified visually and then corrected with haptics, others classified haptically and then integrated visuals.
 %
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ A few participants even reported that they clearly sensed patterns on haptic tex
 %
 However, the visual and haptic textures used were isotropic and homogeneous models of real texture captures, \ie their rendered roughness was constant and did not depend on the direction of movement but only on the speed of the finger.
 %
-Overall, the haptic device was judged to be comfortable, and the visual and haptic textures were judged to be fairly realistic and to work well together (see \figref{results_questions}).
+Overall, the haptic device was judged to be comfortable, and the visual and haptic textures were judged to be fairly realistic and to work well together (\figref{results_questions}).
 
 These results have of course some limitations as they addressed a small set of visuo-haptic textures augmenting the perception of smooth white tangible surfaces.
 %