## 5 Discussion
### Rejected Hypotheses--Detected Influences  
The first rejected hypothesis to discuss is H1. Originally, the authors suspected that the perspective camera type influenced the probability of correct answers. The null hypothesis was that there is no effect, and the alternative hypothesis was that there exists some effect. According to Table 1, this latter proved to be the case. The perspective camera type positively influenced the probability of correct answers. However, as can be seen from Tables 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37 and 38, the results slightly changed when multiple factors were taken into account. This is due to VR being a complex, synthetic environment: in virtual reality, no scene exists with only a single factor. Therefore, it is safe to assume that when the users are taken into the virtual space, multiple factors should be considered. That is why the authors analyzed all factors in pairs and triplets. After examining everything, the perspective camera was demonstrated to be superior in all tests, and this was always an important factor. This forms T1: when using a perspective camera, the performance of the users was significantly (\(p\)-value = \(2.57\times 10^{-12}\)) influenced in terms of increasing their probability of answering correctly; and in pairs, it exhibited significant (\(p\)-value = \(0.0459\)) interactions with \(-45^{\circ}\), \(0^{\circ}\), \(45^{\circ}\) camera rotations or significant (\(p\)-value = \(8.91\times 10^{-5}\)) interactions with the 1.5:1 and 3:1 contrast ratios; in triplets, it had no significant interactions; but in fours it exhibited significant (\(p\)-value = \(0.000133\)) interactions with \(-45^{\circ}\), \(0^{\circ}\), \(45^{\circ}\) camera rotations, 1.5:1, 3:1 contrast ratios, and the Gear VR. T1 is interesting, because when looking at the paper-based tests, the objects on the paper are drawn on the basis of orthographic projection. This fact can also lead to the question as to whether if the tests on the paper were changed to the projection of perspective type, would it also change the probability of the testers' results? The next rejected hypothesis to look at is H4. This hypothesis deals with contrast ratios. According to Table 6, smaller contrast ratios (1.5:1 and 3:1) produce a better probability of correct answers than larger ones. This was also confirmed by Table 7, in which the contrast ratios were grouped into two groups. In Tables 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 33, Tables 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, the contrast ratios were \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Camera Type, Rotation, Contrast** & **Estimate** & **Standard Error** & \(z\)**Value** & **Pr (\textgreater{}|z|)** \\
**Ratio, Device Used** & **Estimate** & **Standard Error** & \(z\)**Value** & **Pr (\textgreater{}|z|)** \\ \hline Intercept & 0.4997428 & 0.0252612 & 19.783 & \(<\)\(2\times 10^{-16}\) \\ Perspective & 0.2281487 & 0.0345391 & 6.606 & \(3.96\times 10^{-11}\) \\ INC\_R & 0.1501627 & 0.0475111 & 3.161 & 0.001575 \\ INC\_C & 0.2106181 & 0.0547860 & 3.844 & 0.000121 \\ Gear VR & 0.0008861 & 0.0552796 & 0.016 & 0.987212 \\ Perspective and INC\_R & \(-0.0028185\) & 0.0532272 & \(-0.053\) & 0.957770 \\ Perspective and INC\_C & \(-0.1660764\) & 0.0532649 & \(-3.118\) & 0.001821 \\ INC\_R and Gear VR & \(-0.0746026\) & 0.0788879 & \(-0.946\) & 0.344313 \\ INC\_R and INC\_C & \(-0.1535519\) & 0.0619693 & \(-2.478\) & 0.013217 \\ INC\_C and Gear VR & \(-0.3450059\) & 0.1374857 & \(-2.509\) & 0.012094 \\ INC\_R and INC\_C and Gear VR & 0.5920143 & 0.1374857 & 3.821 & 0.000133 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 38: Logistic regression analysis results of the four variables models allowing interactions. examined in detail. Since this factor has a great influence on virtual environments, the interaction of the contrast ratio groups was also assessed.