Simpler section reference labels

2-perception/xr-perception/1-introduction.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Introduction}
-\label{sec:introduction}
+\label{introduction}
 
 % Delivers the motivation for your paper. It explains why you did the work you did.
 

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

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Visuo-Haptic Texture Rendering in Mixed Reality}
-\label{sec:method}
+\label{method}
 
 \figwide[1]{method/diagram}{%
     Diagram of the visuo-haptic texture rendering system.
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ The system is composed of three main components: the pose estimation of the trac
 
 
 \subsection{Pose Estimation and Virtual Environment Alignment}
-\label{sec:virtual_real_alignment}
+\label{virtual_real_alignment}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{setup}{Visuo-haptic texture rendering system setup}[%
         \item HapCoil-One voice-coil actuator with a fiducial marker on top attached to a participant's right index finger. %
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ To simulate a VR headset, a cardboard mask (with holes for sensors) is attached
 
 
 \subsection{Vibrotactile Signal Generation and Rendering}
-\label{sec:texture_generation}
+\label{texture_generation}
 
 A voice-coil actuator (HapCoil-One, Actronika) is used to display the vibrotactile signal, as it allows the frequency and amplitude of the signal to be controlled independently over time, covers a wide frequency range (\qtyrange{10}{1000}{\Hz}), and outputs the signal accurately with relatively low acceleration distortion\footnote{HapCoil-One specific characteristics are described in its data sheet: \url{https://web.archive.org/web/20240228161416/https://tactilelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/HapCoil_One_datasheet.pdf}}.
 %
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ The tactile texture is described and rendered in this work as a one dimensional
 
 
 \subsection{System Latency}
-\label{sec:latency}
+\label{latency}
 
 %As shown in \figref{method/diagram} and described above, the system includes various haptic and visual sensors and rendering devices linked by software processes for image processing, 3D rendering and audio generation.
 %

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

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{User Study}
-\label{sec:experiment}
+\label{experiment}
 
 \begin{subfigswide}{renderings}{%
         The three visual rendering conditions and the experimental procedure of the two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) psychophysical study.
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ In order not to influence the perception, as vision is an important source of in
 
 
 \subsection{Participants}
-\label{sec:participants}
+\label{participants}
 
 Twenty participants were recruited for the study (16 males, 3 females, 1 prefer not to say), aged between 18 and 61 years old (\median{26}{}, \iqr{6.8}{}).
 %
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ They all signed an informed consent form before the user study and were unaware
 
 
 \subsection{Apparatus}
-\label{sec:apparatus}
+\label{apparatus}
 
 An experimental environment similar as \textcite{gaffary2017ar} was created to ensure a similar visual rendering in AR and VR (see \figref{renderings}).
 %
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ The user study was held in a quiet room with no windows.
 
 
 \subsection{Procedure}
-\label{sec:procedure}
+\label{procedure}
 
 Participants were first given written instructions about the experimental setup and procedure, the informed consent form to sign, and a demographic questionnaire.
 %
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ Preliminary studies allowed us to determine a range of amplitudes that could be
 
 
 \subsection{Experimental Design}
-\label{sec:experimental_design}
+\label{experimental_design}
 
 The user study was a within-subjects design with two factors:
 %
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ A total of 3 visual renderings \x 6 amplitude differences \x 2 texture presentat
 
 
 \subsection{Collected Data}
-\label{sec:collected_data}
+\label{collected_data}
 
 For each trial, the \textit{Texture Choice} by the participant as the roughest of the pair was recorded.
 %

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

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 \section{Results}
-\label{sec:results}
+\label{results}
 
 \subsection{Trial Measures}
-\label{sec:results_trials}
+\label{results_trials}
 
 All measures from trials were analysed using linear mixed models (LMM) or generalised linear mixed models (GLMM) with \factor{Visual Rendering}, \factor{Amplitude Difference} and their interaction as within-participant factors, and by-participant random intercepts.
 %
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Each estimate is reported with its 95\% confidence interval (CI) as follows: \ci
 
 
 \subsubsection{Discrimination Accuracy}
-\label{sec:discrimination_accuracy}
+\label{discrimination_accuracy}
 
 A GLMM was adjusted to the \response{Texture Choice} in the 2AFC vibrotactile texture roughness discrimination task, with by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes, and a probit link function (see \figref{results/trial_predictions}).
 %
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ All pairwise differences were statistically significant.
 
 
 \subsubsection{Response Time}
-\label{sec:response_time}
+\label{response_time}
 
 A LMM analysis of variance (AOV) with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering}, and a log transformation (as \response{Response Time} measures were gamma distributed) indicated a statistically significant effects on \response{Response Time} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{6.2}, \p{0.009}, see \figref{results/trial_response_times}).
 %
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ The \level{Mixed} rendering was in between (\geomean{1.56}{s} \ci{1.49}{1.63}).
 
 
 \subsubsection{Finger Position and Speed}
-\label{sec:finger_position_speed}
+\label{finger_position_speed}
 
 The frames analysed were those in which the participants actively touched the comparison textures with a finger speed greater than \SI{1}{\mm\per\second}.
 %
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ All pairwise differences were statistically significant: \level{Real} \vs \level
 
 
 \subsection{Questionnaires}
-\label{sec:questions}
+\label{questions}
 
 %\figref{results/question_heatmaps} shows the median and interquartile range (IQR) ratings to the questions in \tabref{questions} and to the NASA-TLX questionnaire.
 %

2-perception/xr-perception/5-discussion.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Discussion}
-\label{sec:discussion}
+\label{discussion}
 
 %Interpret the findings in results, answer to the problem asked in the introduction, contrast with previous articles, draw possible implications. Give limitations of the study.
 

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

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Conclusion}
-\label{sec:conclusion}
+\label{conclusion}
 
 %Summary of the research problem, method, main findings, and implications.