Simpler section reference labels

3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \subsection{Discrimination of Vibration Techniques}
-\label{sec:technique_results}
+\label{technique_results}
 
 Seven participants were able to correctly discriminate between the two vibration techniques, which they described as the contact vibration (being the Impact technique) and the continuous vibration (being the Distance technique) respectively.
 %
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Although the Distance technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetra
 
 
 \subsection{Questionnaire}
-\label{sec:questions}
+\label{questions}
 
 \begin{subfigswide}{questions}{%
         Experiment \#2. Boxplots of the questionnaire results of each vibrotactile positioning
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Only significant results are reported.
 
 
 \subsubsection{Vibrotactile Rendering Rating}
-\label{sec:vibration_ratings}
+\label{vibration_ratings}
 
 There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{27.0}, \pinf{0.001}).
 %
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ And Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.01}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001}).
 
 
 \subsubsection{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
-\label{sec:positioning_hand}
+\label{positioning_hand}
 
 There were two main effects of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of Hand (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
 %
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ And Skeleton more than No Hand (\pinf{0.001}).
 
 
 \subsubsection{Workload}
-\label{sec:workload}
+\label{workload}
 
 There was a main of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}).
 %
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ Participants found Opposite more fatiguing than Fingertips (\p{0.01}), Proximal
 
 
 \subsubsection{Usefulness}
-\label{sec:usefulness}
+\label{usefulness}
 
 There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{38.0}, \p{0.041}).
 %
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ And Opposite more than No Vibrations (\p{0.004}).
 
 
 \subsubsection{Realism}
-\label{sec:realism}
+\label{realism}
 
 There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{28.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
 %