# Effect of a Virtual Biophilic Residential Environment on the Perception and Responses of Seniors
## 4 Results
### Physiological Response by Residential Scales  
Figure 6 shows the physiological measurement values change scores for each residential scale from baseline. Participants showed mostly positive physiological responses in the biophilic residential environment, especially the lowest HR (\(-2.84\) bpm) and GSR (\(-0.12\)\(\mu\)S) and longer HRV (\(+5.81\) ms) intervals on the residential unit scale, indicating higher recovery compared to other residential scales. Although these patterns were similar for the other two scales, we observed inconsistent results for changes in HR on the building scale. HR (\(+0.28\) bpm) showed a slight increase in the building scale compared to the baseline, and GSR and HRV exhibited relatively low recovery levels. However, there was  
Figure 5: Timeline of experimental procedure per sampling.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Outcomes**}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Biophilic Residential Environments (Exposure)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Baseline** \\ **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \begin{tabular}{c} **Unit** \\ **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Building** \\ **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Complex** \\ **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total** \\ **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Physiological response} & HR (bpm) & \(66.35\pm 9.12\) & \(69.47\pm 8.99\) & \(67.23\pm 10.50\) & \(67.68\pm 9.65\) & \(69.19\pm 6.53\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & GSR (\(\mu\)Siemens) & \(0.467\pm 0.17\) & \(0.506\pm 0.17\) & \(0.497\pm 0.19\) & \(0.489\pm 0.176\) & \(0.589\pm 0.244\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & HRV (ms) & \(68.06\pm 14.98\) & \(63.51\pm 15.63\) & \(64.88\pm 14.80\) & \(65.15\pm 15.28\) & \(62.26\pm 11.83\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Self-reported perception (Likert 5)} & Satisfaction & \(4.13\pm 1.01\) & \(3.87\pm 1.25\) & \(3.90\pm 0.99\) & \(3.97\pm 1.10\) & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & Immersion & \(4.10\pm 1.03\) & \(3.70\pm 0.99\) & \(3.83\pm 1.12\) & \(3.88\pm 1.13\) & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Notes: SD = standard deviation; - = no data. The most positive results were bolded.} \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Description of all study variables.  
directional consistency in that the changes in HR, HRV, and GSR all showed high levels of physiological recovery in the order of the unit-building-complex scales.  
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed in Table 4 to test the differences in physiological responses according to the residential scale. As a result of [PERSON]'s sphericity test, the significance probability of all models was close to 1 (\(p\)-value > 0.7), which was judged to be a suitable level for analysis. The model results showed no significant difference in changes in HR, GSR, and HRV for the residential scales, indicating that virtual exposure between the three biophilic residential scales had similar effects on the physiological responses of the senior.  
Figure 6: Changes in physiological response according to biophilic residential scales. Notes: \(\Delta\)(Delta) = changes in physiological measures from baseline; HR = heart rate; GSR = galvanic skin response; HRV = heart rate variability. The error bars depict 95% confidence interval.