## 3 Results
### Case Study 3: Combined Use of PC and VR Interfaces  
The main information of the participants was the following: 60.00% of the participants were female, while the remaining 40.00% were male. This work aimed to cover a wide age range, including 10.00% under 18 years old, 10.00% between 18 and 40 years old, 60.00% between 40 and 55 years old, and 20.00% over 70 years old. In terms of education level, 40.00% indicated basic studies, 20.00% indicated bachelor's studies, and 40.00% indicated post-graduate studies. Moreover, 60.00% of the participants reported previous experience with metaverse services, while the remaining 40.00% had no experience. Additionally, 60.00% of the participants mentioned using the internet (websites, apps, etc.) habitually to organize their trips, while 40.00% indicated organizing trips without internet usage. As for guided visits during trips, 40.00% of the participants always used them, 50.00% occasionally used them, and 10.00% never used them. Finally, 80.00% of the participants reported being users of PC peripheral devices such as keyboards, mice, joysticks, gamepads, etc., while 20.00% occasionally or never used such devices. The comparison of PQ results between participants using the PC-based interface and the VR interface is illustrated in Figure 6. Specifically, Figure 6 displays the mean and standard deviation for each PQ question when participants used the PC-based interface, while Figure 6 presents the same for the VR interface. Furthermore, Figure 6 demonstrates the total percentage for each PQ subscale when participants used the PC-based interface, and Figure 6 exhibits the equivalent results for the VR interface. In particular, the Involvement score was 80.29% and 82.00% for the PC-based interface and VR interface, respectively, indicating that participants actively engaged with the virtual reality environment and were attentive to most aspects. It is noteworthy that this score is similar to the results obtained from participants who used only one of the interfaces (case studies 1 and 2). The Sensor Fidelity score was 85.48% and 91.19% for the PC-based interface and VR interface, respectively. This score indicates that users were able to observe the virtual environment from multiple perspectives and interact with objects seamlessly. Similarly, this score aligns with the results obtained from participants who used only one of the interfaces (case studies 1 and 2). It is worth noting that the VR interface demonstrated greater ease of interaction compared to the PC-based interface, as observed previously. For the Immersion score, the PC-based interface scored 86.79%, while the VR interface scored 83.93%. These scores suggest that participants quickly and easily adapted to the virtual environments, enabling them to perform tasks without distractions. Similar to the previous indicators, these scores are consistent with the results obtained from participants who used only one of the interfaces (case studies 1 and 2). Regarding the Interface Quality score, the PC-based interface scored 86.79%, while the VR interface scored 83.93%. These scores indicate that participants did not perceive significant failures or malfunctions in the applications during tasks. It is important to note that this result differs from the findings of case study 2, where participants exclusively used the VR interface. The variation in scores can be attributed to the fact that, in this case study, 60% of the users initially used the PC-based interface, gaining familiarity with the navigation tools and functionalities before transitioning to the VR interface. Regarding the SUS questionnaire (refer to Figure 7), the overall perceived usability was 71.82 out of 100 (min: 67.5, max: 92.5; SD: 8.68) for the PC-based interface and 72.73 out of 100 (min: 52.5, max: 97.5; SD: 13.33) for the VR interface. These scores indicate that the proposed interfaces have achieved a good level of usability. It is noteworthy that these results are consistent with the findings from case studies 1 and 2.