## 3 Results
### Comparison of Base Rowing Models (BIFC vs. LIAC)
#### 3.1.3. Aspect 5: Overall Realism of the Rowing Forces and Synchronized Flow of Visual Scenario  
The _lme-1_ revealed a significant main effect of _BaseModel_ for the overall realism of the rowing forces and a trending main effect for the flow of visual scenario (Q10: \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=39.1;\;p=0.057\)). For Question 9, LIAC was rated more realistic than BIFC (Q9: \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=39.12;\;p<0.001\)) that was rated below medium. For Question 10, both models were rated with a slightly above-medium value (Table 2).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_lme-1_:} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_lme-2_:} \\
**Aspect of** & **Quest.** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_BaseModel_ (BIFC vs. LIAC)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_Configuration_ (LIAC vs. IND)} \\ \cline{3-6}
**Rowing** & **Index** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean Rating**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Main Effect of**} \\  & & **of Models** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group and**} & **of Models** & **Group and** \\  & & & \(p\)**-Value** & & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{A1} & \multirow{2}{*}{Q1} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=4.05\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=26.81\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=5.95\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=6.01\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=5.95\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(\mu_{IND}=6.60\) & \(p=0.03\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Q2} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=6.15\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=0.57\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=5.85\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=5.56\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=5.85\) & \(p=0.455\) & \(\mu_{IND}=6.80\) & \(p=0.041\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{A2} & \multirow{2}{*}{Q3} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=6.00\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=0.23\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=5.75\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=4.86\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=5.75\) & \(p=0.633\) & \(\mu_{IND}=6.30\) & \(p=0.052\). \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Q4} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=5.30\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=0.50\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=5.65\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=3.19\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=5.65\) & \(p=0.484\) & \(\mu_{IND}=6.40\) & \(p=0.104\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{A3} & \multirow{2}{*}{Q5} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=4.85\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=39.36\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=7.25\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=6.13\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=7.25\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(\mu_{IND}=8.20\) & \(p=0.032\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Q6} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=3.85\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=30.37\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=6.25\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=54.44\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=6.25\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(\mu_{IND}=8.00\) & \(p<0.001\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{A4} & \multirow{2}{*}{Q7} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=5.10\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=24.86\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=7.15\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=7.21\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=7.15\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(\mu_{IND}=8.00\) & \(p=0.023\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Q8} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=5.50\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=6.72\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=6.65\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=6.95\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=6.65\) & \(p=0.015\) & \(\mu_{IND}=7.80\) & \(p=0.025\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{A5} & \multirow{2}{*}{Q9} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=4.65\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=39.12\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=6.70\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=16.74\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=6.70\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(\mu_{IND}=7.90\) & \(p=0.002\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Q10} & \(\mu_{\text{BIFC}}=5.35\) & \(F_{BM}(1,\;30)=3.91\) & \(\mu_{LIAC}=6.05\) & \(F_{C}(1,\;10)=1.16\) \\  & & \(\mu_{\text{LIAC}}=6.05\) & \(p=0.057\) & \(\mu_{IND}=6.40\) & \(p=0.306\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Statistical results from lme-1 and lme-2 models for each question in the questionnaires.