Auto add chapter as prefix to labels

2-perception/ar-textures/1-introduction.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Introduction}
-\sublabel{introduction}
+\label{sec:introduction}
 
 When we look at the surface of an everyday object, we then touch it to confirm or contrast our initial visual impression and to estimate the properties of the object~\autocite{ernst2002humans}.
 %

2-perception/ar-textures/2-experiment.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{User Study}
-\sublabel{experiment}
+\label{sec:experiment}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{setup}{%
         (Left) The nine visuo-haptic textures used in the user study, selected from the HaTT database~\autocite{culbertson2014one}. %
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Our objective is to assess which haptic textures were associated with which visu
 
 
 \subsection{The textures}
-\sublabel{textures}
+\label{sec::textures}
 
 The 100 visuo-haptic texture pairs of the HaTT database~\autocite{culbertson2014one} were preliminary tested and compared using AR and vibrotactile haptic feedback on the finger on a tangible surface.
 %
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ All these visual and haptic textures are isotropic: their rendering (appearance
 
 
 \subsection{Apparatus}
-\sublabel{apparatus}
+\label{sec::apparatus}
 
 \figref{setup} shows the experimental setup (middle) and the first person view (right) of the user study.
 %
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ The user study was held in a quiet room with no windows, with one light source o
 
 
 \subsection{Procedure and Collected Data}
-\sublabel{procedure}
+\label{sec::procedure}
 
 Participants were first given written instructions about the experimental setup, the tasks, and the procedure of the user study.
 %
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ The user study took on average 1 hour to complete.
 
 
 \subsection{Participants}
-\sublabel{participants}
+\label{sec::participants}
 
 Twenty participants took part to the user study (12 males, 7 females, 1 preferred not to say), aged between 20 and 60 years old (M=29.1, SD=9.4).
 %
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ They all signed an informed consent form before the user study.
 
 
 \subsection{Design}
-\sublabel{design}
+\label{sec::design}
 
 The matching task was a single-factor within-subjects design, \textit{Visual Texture}, with the following levels:
 %

2-perception/ar-textures/3-results.tex

@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 \section{Results}
-\sublabel{results}
+\label{sec:results}
 
 \subsection{Textures Matching}
-\sublabel{results_matching}
+\label{sec:results_matching}
 
 \subsubsection{Confusion Matrix}
-\sublabel{results_matching_confusion_matrix}
+\label{sec:results_matching_confusion_matrix}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{results_matching_ranking}{%
         (Left) Confusion matrix of the matching task, with the presented visual textures as columns and the selected haptic texture in proportion as rows. %
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Another explanation could be that the participants had difficulties to estimate
 Indeed, many participants explained that they tried to identify or imagine the roughness of a given visual texture then to select the most plausible haptic texture, in terms of frequency and/or amplitude of vibrations.
 
 \subsubsection{Completion Time}
-\sublabel{results_matching_time}
+\label{sec:results_matching_time}
 
 To verify that the difficulty with all the visual textures was the same on the matching task, the \textit{Completion Time} of a trial, \ie the time between the visual texture display and the haptic texture selection, was analyzed.
 %
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ No statistical significant effect of \textit{Visual Texture} was found (\anova{8
 
 
 \subsection{Textures Ranking}
-\sublabel{results_ranking}
+\label{sec:results_ranking}
 
 \figref{results_matching_ranking} (right) presents the results of the three rankings of the haptic textures alone, the visual textures alone, and the visuo-haptic texture pairs.
 %
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ These results indicate, with \figref{results_matching_ranking} (right), that the
 
 
 \subsection{Perceived Similarity of Visual and Haptic Textures}
-\sublabel{results_similarity}
+\label{sec:results_similarity}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{results_similarity}{%
         (Left) Correspondence analysis of the matching task confusion matrix (see \figref{results_matching_ranking}, left).
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ This shows that the participants consistently identified the roughness of each v
 
 
 \subsection{Questionnaire}
-\sublabel{results_questions}
+\label{sec:results_questions}
 
 \begin{subfigs}{results_questions}{%
         Boxplots of the 7-item Likert scale question results (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely) %

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

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Discussion}
-\sublabel{discussion}
+\label{sec:discussion}
 
 In this study, we investigated the perception of visuo-haptic texture augmentation of tangible surfaces touched directly with the index fingertip, using visual texture overlays in AR and haptic roughness textures generated by a vibrotactile device worn on the middle index phalanx.
 %

2-perception/ar-textures/5-conclusion.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Conclusion}
-\sublabel{conclusion}
+\label{sec:conclusion}
 
 \fig[0.6]{experiment/use_case}{%
     Illustration of the texture augmentation in AR through an interior design scenario. %

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

@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
 \mainchapter{Augmenting the Texture Perception of Tangible Surfaces in Augmented Reality using Vibrotactile Haptics}
-
-\renewcommand{\labelprefix}{ar_textures}
-\label{ch:\labelprefix}
+\mainlabel{ar_textures}
 
 \input{1-introduction}
 \input{2-experiment}