Replace \citeauthorcite => \textcite

2-perception/xr-perception/2-related-work.tex

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ When running a finger over a surface, the deformations and vibrations of the ski
 %
 %In this way, physics-based models~\autocite{chan2021hasti,okamura1998vibration} and data-based models~\autocite{culbertson2015should,romano2010automatic} have been developed and evaluated, the former being simpler but more approximate to real textures, and the latter being more realistic but limited to the captured textures.
 %
-%Notably, \citeauthorcite{okamura1998vibration} rendered grating textures with exponentially decaying sinudoids that simulated the strokes of the grooves and ridges of the surface, while \citeauthorcite{culbertson2014modeling} captured and modelled the roughness of real surfaces to render them using the speed and force of the user.
+%Notably, \textcite{okamura1998vibration} rendered grating textures with exponentially decaying sinudoids that simulated the strokes of the grooves and ridges of the surface, while \textcite{culbertson2014modeling} captured and modelled the roughness of real surfaces to render them using the speed and force of the user.
 %
 An effective approach to rendering virtual roughness is to generate vibrations to simulate interaction with the virtual texture~\autocite{culbertson2018haptics}, relying on the user's real-time measurements of position, velocity and force. % to modulate the frequencies and amplitudes of the vibrations, with position and velocity being the most important parameters~\autocite{culbertson2015should}.
 %
@@ -52,19 +52,19 @@ It remains unclear whether such vibrotactile texture augmentation is perceived t
 
 When the same object property is sensed simultaneously by vision and touch, the two modalities are integrated into a single perception.
 %
-The phychophysical model of \citeauthorcite{ernst2002humans} established that the sense with the least variability dominates perception.
+The phychophysical model of \textcite{ernst2002humans} established that the sense with the least variability dominates perception.
 %
 %In particular, this effect has been used to better understand the visuo-haptic perception of texture and to design better feedback for virtual objects.
 Particularly for real textures, it is known that both touch and sight individually perceive textures equally well and similarly~\autocite{bergmanntiest2007haptic,baumgartner2013visual,vardar2019fingertip}.
 %
-Thus, the overall perception can be modified by changing one of the modalities, as shown by \citeauthorcite{yanagisawa2015effects}, who altered the perception of roughness, stiffness and friction of some real tactile textures touched by the finger by superimposing different real visual textures using a half-mirror.
+Thus, the overall perception can be modified by changing one of the modalities, as shown by \textcite{yanagisawa2015effects}, who altered the perception of roughness, stiffness and friction of some real tactile textures touched by the finger by superimposing different real visual textures using a half-mirror.
 %
-%Similarly but in VR, \citeauthorcite{degraen2019enhancing} combined visual textures with different passive haptic hair-like structure that were touched with the finger to induce a larger set of visuo-haptic materials perception.
+%Similarly but in VR, \textcite{degraen2019enhancing} combined visual textures with different passive haptic hair-like structure that were touched with the finger to induce a larger set of visuo-haptic materials perception.
 %
-%\citeauthorcite{gunther2022smooth} studied in a complementary way how the visual rendering of a virtual object touching the arm with a tangible object influenced the perception of roughness.
+%\textcite{gunther2022smooth} studied in a complementary way how the visual rendering of a virtual object touching the arm with a tangible object influenced the perception of roughness.
 Likewise, visual textures were combined in VR with various tangible objects to induce a larger set of visuo-haptic material perceptions, in both active touch~\autocite{degraen2019enhancing} and passive touch~\autocite{gunther2022smooth} contexts.
 %
-\citeauthorcite{normand2024augmenting} also investigated the roughness perception of tangible surfaces touched with the finger and augmented with visual textures in AR and with wearable vibrotactile textures.
+\textcite{normand2024augmenting} also investigated the roughness perception of tangible surfaces touched with the finger and augmented with visual textures in AR and with wearable vibrotactile textures.
 %
 %A common finding of these studies is that haptic sensations seem to dominate the perception of roughness, suggesting that a smaller set of haptic textures can support a larger set of visual textures.
 %
@@ -82,18 +82,18 @@ The vibrotactile sinusoidal rendering of virtual texture cited above was also co
 %
 %However, the visual representation was a virtual cursor seen on a screen while the haptic feedback was felt with a hand-held device.
 %
-%Conversely, as discussed by \citeauthorcite{ujitoko2021survey} in their review, a co-localised visuo-haptic rendering can cause the user to notice the mismatch between their real movements and the visuo-haptic feedback.
+%Conversely, as discussed by \textcite{ujitoko2021survey} in their review, a co-localised visuo-haptic rendering can cause the user to notice the mismatch between their real movements and the visuo-haptic feedback.
 %
 Even before manipulating a visual representation to induce a haptic sensation, shifts and latencies between user input and co-localised visuo-haptic feedback can be experienced differently in AR and VR, which we aim to investigate in this work.
 %it remains unclear whether touching the same tactile texture augmentation in immersive AR or VR with one's own hand or with a virtual hand can be perceived differently.
 
 A few studies specifically compared visuo-haptic perception in AR \vs VR.
 %
-Rendering a virtual piston pressed with one's real hand using a video see-through (VST) AR headset and a force feedback haptic device, \citeauthorcite{diluca2011effects} showed that a visual delay increased the perceived stiffness of the piston, whereas a haptic delay decreased it.
+Rendering a virtual piston pressed with one's real hand using a video see-through (VST) AR headset and a force feedback haptic device, \textcite{diluca2011effects} showed that a visual delay increased the perceived stiffness of the piston, whereas a haptic delay decreased it.
 %
-%\citeauthorcite{diluca2011effects} went on to explain how these delays affected the weighting of visual and haptic information in perceived stiffness.
+%\textcite{diluca2011effects} went on to explain how these delays affected the weighting of visual and haptic information in perceived stiffness.
 %
-In a similar setup, but with an optical see-through (OST) AR headset, \citeauthorcite{gaffary2017ar} found that the virtual piston was perceived as less stiff in AR than in VR, without participants noticing this difference.
+In a similar setup, but with an optical see-through (OST) AR headset, \textcite{gaffary2017ar} found that the virtual piston was perceived as less stiff in AR than in VR, without participants noticing this difference.
 %
 Using a VST-AR headset have notable consequences, as the "real" view of the environment and the hand is actually a visual stream from a camera, which has a noticeable delay and lower quality (\eg resolution, frame rate, field of view) compared to the direct view of the real environment with OST-AR~\autocite{macedo2023occlusion}.
 %

2-perception/xr-perception/3-method.tex

@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ To reduce the noise the pose estimation while maintaining a good responsiveness,
 %
 It is a low-pass filter with an adaptive cutoff frequency, specifically designed for tracking human motion.
 %
-The optimal filter parameters were determined using the method of \citeauthorcite{casiez2012filter}, with a minimum cutoff frequency of \qty{10}{\hertz} and a slope of \num{0.01}.
+The optimal filter parameters were determined using the method of \textcite{casiez2012filter}, with a minimum cutoff frequency of \qty{10}{\hertz} and a slope of \num{0.01}.
 %
 The velocity of the marker is estimated using the discrete derivative of the position and an other 1€ filter with the same parameters.
 
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ However, when a new finger position is estimated at time $t_j$, the phase $\phi_
 %
 This approach avoids sudden changes in the actuator movement thus affecting the texture perception in an uncontrolled way (see \figref{method/phase_adjustment}) and, contrary to previous work~\autocite{asano2015vibrotactile,friesen2024perceived}, it enables no constraints a free exploration of the texture by the user with no constraints on the finger speed.
 %
-Finally, as \citeauthorcite{ujitoko2019modulating}, a square wave is chosen over a sine wave to get a rendering closer to a real grating texture with the sensation of crossing edges, and because the roughness perception of sine wave textures has been shown not to reproduce the roughness perception of real grating textures~\autocite{unger2011roughness}.
+Finally, as \textcite{ujitoko2019modulating}, a square wave is chosen over a sine wave to get a rendering closer to a real grating texture with the sensation of crossing edges, and because the roughness perception of sine wave textures has been shown not to reproduce the roughness perception of real grating textures~\autocite{unger2011roughness}.
 %
 %And secondly, to be able to render low frequencies that occurs when the finger moves slowly or the texture period is large, as the actuator cannot render frequencies below \qty{\approx 20}{\Hz} with enough amplitude to be perceived with a pure sine wave signal.
 %

2-perception/xr-perception/4-experiment.tex

@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ They all signed an informed consent form before the user study and were unaware
 \subsection{Apparatus}
 \label{sec:apparatus}
 
-An experimental environment similar as \citeauthorcite{gaffary2017ar} was created to ensure a similar visual rendering in AR and VR (see \figref{renderings}).
+An experimental environment similar as \textcite{gaffary2017ar} was created to ensure a similar visual rendering in AR and VR (see \figref{renderings}).
 %
 It consisted of a \qtyproduct{300 x 210 x 400}{\mm} medium-density fibreboard (MDF) box with a paper sheet glued inside, and a \qtyproduct{15 x 5}{\mm} rectangle printed on the sheet to delimit the area where the tactile textures were rendered.
 %
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Participants rated the roughness of the paper (without any texture augmentation)
 %f
 The virtual environment was carefully reproducing the real environment including the geometry of the box, the textures, the lighting, and the shadows (see \figref{renderings}, \level{Virtual}).
 %
-The virtual hand model was a gender-neutral human right hand with realistic skin texture, similar to the one used by \citeauthorcite{schwind2017these}.
+The virtual hand model was a gender-neutral human right hand with realistic skin texture, similar to the one used by \textcite{schwind2017these}.
 %
 Its size was adjusted to match the real hand of the participants before the experiment.
 %
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ After each \factor{Visual Rendering} block of trials, participants rated their e
 %
 %They also assessed their workload with the NASA Task Load Index (\textit{NASA-TLX}) questionnaire after each blocks of trials.
 %
-For all questions, participants were shown only labels (\eg \enquote{Not at all} or \enquote{Extremely}) and not the actual scale values (\eg 1 or 5), following the recommendations of \citeauthorcite{muller2014survey}.
+For all questions, participants were shown only labels (\eg \enquote{Not at all} or \enquote{Extremely}) and not the actual scale values (\eg 1 or 5), following the recommendations of \textcite{muller2014survey}.
 
 \newcommand{\scalegroup}[2]{\multirow{#1}{1\linewidth}{#2}}
 \begin{tabwide}{questions}{%

2-perception/xr-perception/6-discussion.tex

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ The results showed a difference in vibrotactile roughness perception between the
 %
 Given the estimated point of subjective equality (PSE), the textures in the \level{Real} rendering were on average perceived as \enquote{rougher} than in the \level{Virtual} (\percent{-2.8}) and \level{Mixed} (\percent{-6.0}) renderings (see \figref{results/trial_pses}).
 %
-\citeauthorcite{gaffary2017ar} found a PSE difference in the same range between AR and VR for perceived stiffness, with the VR perceived as \enquote{stiffer} and the AR as \enquote{softer}.
+\textcite{gaffary2017ar} found a PSE difference in the same range between AR and VR for perceived stiffness, with the VR perceived as \enquote{stiffer} and the AR as \enquote{softer}.
 %
 %However, the difference between the \level{Virtual} and \level{Mixed} conditions was not significant.
 %
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ Conversely, when interacting with a real texture, there is no lag between any of
 %
 Thereby, we hypothesise that the differences in the perception of vibrotactile roughness are less due to the visual rendering of the hand or environment and their associated difference in exploration behaviour, but rather to the difference in the perceived latency between one's own hand (visually and proprioceptively) and the virtual hand (visually and haptically).
 %
-\citeauthorcite{diluca2011effects} demonstrated, in a VST-AR setup, how visual latency relative to proprioception increased the perception of stiffness of a virtual piston, while haptic latency decreased it.
+\textcite{diluca2011effects} demonstrated, in a VST-AR setup, how visual latency relative to proprioception increased the perception of stiffness of a virtual piston, while haptic latency decreased it.
 %
 Another complementary explanation could be a pseudo-haptic effect of the displacement of the virtual hand, as already observed with this vibrotactile texture rendering, but seen on a screen in a non-immersive context~\autocite{ujitoko2019modulating}.
 %