## 4 Experimental Environment and Results
### Field Study Results
#### 4.3.1 First Phase Implementation Results  
The first phase introduced 60 prototype units across 25 diverse sites throughout Taiwan for a one-year empirical study. As shown in Table 2, 33 experiential sessions were conducted, with a total of 659 participants, including primary users (n = 420, age range 60-102 years) and co-players (n = 239). The research sites were categorized into five functional types: home care visit points (22%), home service centers (28%), daycare centers (22%), community stations (22%), and cognitive leisure stations (6%). The co-players comprised professional caregivers (50%), children (37%), foreign caregivers (9%), family members (3%), and neighbors (1%), with an age range from 3 to 50 years. The system effectiveness evaluation results, as presented in Table 3, revealed significant differences across the usage contexts. In group institutional settings, the overall SUS score reached 85.32, with learnability reaching 92.12 and usability reaching 83.63. In contrast, individual home service settings showed lower performance, with an overall SUS score of 77.85, learnability at 89.12, and usability at 75.03. This disparity reflects the positive influence of the social context on the system's effectiveness. Our further analysis of the interaction patterns revealed significant advantages, in terms of the intergenerational interaction mode. As shown in Table 4, the intergenerational mode achieved an SUS score of 92.12, representing a 14.15% improvement over the elderly-only group (80.70). Notably, in terms of usability, the intergenerational group's performance (91.62) surpassed that of the elderly-only group (78.56) by 16.62%. The statistical analysis indicated that these differences were highly significant (\(p\) < 0.001), with large effect sizes ([PERSON]'s d = 1.24). Through our systematic observations and data analyses, three primary interaction patterns emerged:  
1. Social interaction pattern: Users showed increased engagement when participating in group activities, with the social dynamics enhancing the motivation and participation rates. The quantitative data supported this finding, with group settings achieving significantly higher SUS scores (85.32) compared to individual usage (77.85). 2. Social facilitation pattern: Competitive scenarios stimulated participation and motivation, with group atmospheres enhancing the users' interest. This was particularly evident in the intergenerational interaction mode, where the SUS scores reached 92.12, representing a significant improvement over individual use. 3. Functional adaptation pattern: Participants with varying physical and mental conditions could participate through flexible operational adjustments, demonstrating the system's adaptability across different user capabilities. This was supported by the high usability scores across the different user groups. The further analysis of the intergenerational interaction mode demonstrated significant advantages across all metrics. As shown in Table 4, the intergenerational group achieved an overall SUS score of 92.12 (\(\pm\)2.31), representing a 14.15% improvement over the elderly-only group (80.70 \(\pm\) 2.45). This difference was statistically significant (\(p\) < 0.001), with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.24). Particularly noteworthy were the improvements in the following specific aspects. 1. Learnability: The intergenerational group (\(94.12\pm 1.98\)) showed a 5.46% improvement over the elderly-only group (89.25 \(\pm\) 2.12), \(p\) < 0.01, d = 0.89. 2. Usability: The most substantial improvement was observed in the usability scores, where the intergenerational group (\(91.62\pm 2.15\)) outperformed the elderly-only group (78.56 \(\pm\) 2.33) by 16.62%, \(p\) < 0.001, d = 1.35. These results consistently demonstrate the significant benefits of intergenerational interaction across all evaluation metrics, with particularly strong effects in terms of the