# Visual and Haptic Guidance for Enhancing Target Search Performance in Dual-Task Settings
## 4 Study 2: Visual-Haptic Guidance Design and Evaluation
### Results
#### 4.2.2 Reaction Time, Selection Time, and User Behavior Data in Secondary Task of Study 2  
Reaction Time A main effect was found for Feedback Modality \((F_{2,22}=20.80,\)p\(<\)0.001). No other main effect or interaction effect was found for Row and Column. The mean reaction times across Feedback Modality, Row, and Column are illustrated in Figure 7a. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the reaction times of Haptic Feedback (4.15 s) and Visual-Haptic Feedback (3.86 s) were significantly faster than that of Visual Feedback (5.24 s) \((p<0.05)\).  
Selection Time A main effect was found for Column \((F_{2.46,27.05}=15.56,p<0.001)\). (The sphericity assumption was not met so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied; the corrected degrees of freedom are shown.) No other main effect or interaction effect was found for Feedback Modality and Row. The mean selection times across Feedback Modality, Row, and Column are illustrated in Figure 7b. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the selection times of column 1 (3.12 s), column 2 (3.10 s), column 4 (3.00 s), and column 5 (3.25 s) were significantly faster than that of column 3 (4.11 s) \((p<0.05)\).  
Head Rotation Angle A main effect was found for Column \((F_{4,44}=29.97,p<0.001)\). No other main effect or interaction effect was found for Modality and Row. The mean head rotation angles across Feedback Modality, Row, and Column are illustrated in Figure 7c. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the angles of column 1 (133.85 degrees), column 2 (140.24 degrees), column 4 (143.79 degrees), and column 5 (139.82 degrees) were significantly smaller than that of column 3 (193.91 degrees) \((p<0.001)\).  
Head Movement Distance A main effect was found for Column \((F_{4,44}=14.70,\)p\(<\)0.001). No other main effect or interaction effect was found for the Modality and Row. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the head movement distance of column 3 (31.12 cm) was significantly longer than those of column 1 (22.75 cm), column 2 (23.16 cm), column 4 (22.01 cm), and column 5 (22.85 cm) \((p<0.05)\).  
We also recorded the head movement distance along the X, Y, and Z dimensions. For the X dimension, a main effect was found for Column \((F_{4,44}=9.97,p<0.001)\). No other main effect or interaction effect was found for Feedback Modality and Row. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the distance along the X dimension of column 3 (17.48 cm) was significantly longer than those of column 1 (12.53 cm), column 2 (12.51 cm), column 4 (12.10 cm), and column 5 (12.71 cm) \((p<0.05)\).  
For the Y dimension, a main effect was found for Column \((F_{2.09,22.93}=16.48,\)p\(<\)0.001). (The sphericity assumption was not met so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied; the corrected degrees of freedom are shown.) Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the distance along the Y dimension of row 2 (7.63 cm) was significantly longer than that of row 1 (6.46 cm) \((p<0.05)\), and that the distance along the Y dimension of column 3 (9.83 cm) was significantly longer than those of column 1 (6.37 cm), column 2 (6.70 cm), column 4 (6.11 cm), and column 5 (6.21 cm) \((p<0.05)\).  
For the Z dimension, a main effect was found for Column \((F_{4,44}=9.06,p<0.001)\). Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the distance along the Z dimension of column 3 (17.42 cm) was significantly longer than those of column 1 (13.92 cm), column 2 (14.28 cm), column 4 (13.26 cm), and column 5 (13.94 cm) \((p<0.05)\).  
The mean head movement distances across Feedback Modality, Row, and Column are illustrated in Figure 7.