# Questionnaires or Inner Feelings: Who Measures the Engagement Better?
## 2 Materials and Methods
### User Engagement Scale (UES)  
The User Engagement Scale (UES) [35; 36] is a questionnaire developed to measure the quality of the user experience. The original UES consists of 31 items, but, in this work, a reduced version of 29 closed-ended questions on a scale of 1 to 7 is used, structured as summarized in Table 1.  
To compare the results obtained following the training and testing of the neural network with the data collected from the questionnaires, it is necessary to define a relationship between the scores from 1 to 7 and the 3 classes chosen. For this purpose, the class \"deactivation\" is identified with a score ranging from 1 to 2, the class \"average activation\" from 3 to 5, while the class \"activation\" from 6 to 7, except for items PU. 1, PU. 2, PU. 3, PU. 4, PU. 5, PU. 6, PU. 8, and EN. 3, highlighted in Table 1, that require to reverse code the evaluation scale as they have a negative meaning.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c l} \hline \hline  & FA. 1 & I lost myself in this experience \\ \cline{2-3} Focused & FA. 2 & I was so involved in this experience that I lost track of time \\ \cline{2-3} Attention & FA. 3 & I blocked out things around me when I was using “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \cline{2-3}  & FA. 5 & The time I spent using “Farmer4.0 Simulator” just slipped away \\ \cline{2-3}  & FA. 6 & I was absorbed in this experience \\ \hline \hline  & PU. 1 & I felt frustrated while using this “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \cline{2-3}  & PU. 2 & I found this “Farmer4.0 Simulator” confusing to use \\ \cline{2-3} Perceived & PU. 3 & I felt annoyed while using “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \cline{2-3} Usability & PU. 4 & I felt discouraged while using this “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \cline{2-3}  & PU. 5 & Using this “Farmer4.0 Simulator” was mentally taxing \\ \cline{2-3}  & PU. 6 & This experience was demanding \\ \cline{2-3}  & PU. 7 & I felt in control while using this “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \cline{2-3}  & PU. 8 & I could not do some of the things I needed to do while using \\ \cline{2-3}  & “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \hline \hline  & AE. 1 & This “Farmer4.0 Simulator” was attractive \\ \cline{2-3} Aesthetic & AE. 2 & This “Farmer4.0 Simulator” was aesthetically appealing \\ \cline{2-3} Appeal & AE. 3 & I liked the graphics and images of “Farmer4.0 Simulator” \\ \cline{2-3}  & AE. 4 & “Farmer4.0 Simulator” appealed to be visual senses \\ \cline{2-3}  & AE. 5 & The screen layout of “Farmer4.0 Simulator” was visually pleasing \\ \hline \hline  & EN. 1 & Using “Farmer4.0 Simulator” was worthwhile \\ \cline{2-3} Endurability & EN. 2 & I consider my experience a success \\ \cline{2-3}  & EN. 3 & This experience did not work out the way I had planned \\ \cline{2-3}  & EN. 4 & My experience was rewarding \\ \cline{2-3}  & EN. 5 & I would recommend “Farmer4.0 Simulator” to my family and friends \\ \hline \hline  & NO. 1 & I continued to use “Farmer4.0 Simulator” out of curiosity \\ \cline{2-3} Novelty & NO. 2 & The content of “Farmer4.0 Simulator” incited my curiosity \\ \cline{2-3}  & NO. 3 & I felt interested in my task \\ \hline \hline  & FI. 1 & I was really drawn into my task \\ \cline{2-3} Involvement & FI. 2 & I felt involved in this task \\ \cline{2-3}  & FI. 3 & This experience was fun \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The 29-items of the User Engagement Scale (UES) questionnaire divided into the six dimensions of engagement: focused attention (FA), perceived usability (PU), aesthetic appeal (AE), endurability (EN), novelty (NO), and felt involvement (FI). The negative closed-ended questions are highlighted in red.