Auto add chapter as prefix to labels

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

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \section{Discussion}
-\sublabel{discussion}
+\label{sec: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.
 
@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ The \level{Mixed} rendering, displaying both the real and virtual hands, was alw
 %
 This suggests that touching a virtual vibrotactile texture on a tangible surface with a virtual hand in VR is different from touching it with one's own hand: users were more cautious or less confident in their exploration in VR.
 %
-This seems not due to the realism of the virtual hand or environment, nor the control of the virtual hand, that were all rated high to very high by the participants (see \secref{xr_perception:questions}) in both the \level{Mixed} and \level{Virtual} renderings.
+This seems not due to the realism of the virtual hand or environment, nor the control of the virtual hand, that were all rated high to very high by the participants (see \secref{questions}) in both the \level{Mixed} and \level{Virtual} renderings.
 %
-Very interestingly, the evaluation of the vibrotactile device and textures was also the same between the visual rendering, with a very high sensation of control, a good realism and a very low perceived latency of the textures (see \secref{xr_perception:questions}).
+Very interestingly, the evaluation of the vibrotactile device and textures was also the same between the visual rendering, with a very high sensation of control, a good realism and a very low perceived latency of the textures (see \secref{questions}).
 %
 However, the perceived latency of the virtual hand (\response{Hand Latency} question) seems to be related to the perceived roughness of the textures (with the PSEs).
 %