## 4 Results and Discussion
### Experiment
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sr No.** & **SART** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Medium**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **SART** & **Paper Mean** & **Monitor** & **Oculus Quest** & **Kruskal–Wallis Test H** & **Significance (\(p\))** \\  & **(Elements)** & **(SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & **2 Mean (SD)** & **Test H** & **Significance (\(p\))** \\ \hline
1 & Instability of Situation & 2.94 (0.76) & 3.03 (0.93) & 2.94 (0.88) & 0.106 & 0.949 ** \\
2 & Complexity of Situation & 3.66 (0.9) & 2.81 (0.82) & 2.91 (0.73) & 15.330 & 0.000 ** \\
3 & Variability of Situation & 2.66 (0.9) & 3.03 (0.93) & 2.63 (0.79) & 3.132 & 0.209** \\
4 & Arousal & 2.59 (0.76) & 2.94 (0.80) & 2.69 (0.82) & 14.460 & 0.002 * \\
5 & Concentration & 2.66 (0.75) & 2.88 (0.79) & 2.41 (0.71) & 7.042 & 0.030 * \\
6 & Division of Attention & 2.72 (0.58) & 2.41 (0.67) & 2.41 (0.71) & 4.932 & 0.085 ** \\
7 & Spare Mental Capacity & 3.16 (0.85) & 2.66 (0.75) & 2.63 (0.75) & 8.733 & 0.013 ** \\
8 & Information Quantity & 2.81 (1.03) & 3.19 (0.78) & 3.41 (0.87) & 0.802 & 0.670 ** \\
9 & Information Quality & 2.72 (0.73) & 3.56 (1.16) & 3.75 (0.98) & 12.337 & 0.002 ** \\
10 & Familiarity & 2.59 (0.98) & 3.25 (0.76) & 3.53 (1.05) & 4.522 & 0.104 ** \\
11 & Attentional Demand (D) & 9.25(1.79) & 8.88(1.77) & 8.46(1.74) & 3.724 & 0.155 ** \\
12 & Attentional Supply (S) & 11.12(1.60) & 10.88(1.54) & 10.12(1.58) & 7.473 & 0.024 * \\
13 & Understanding (U) & 8.12(1.95) & 10.0(1.85) & 10.69(1.97) & 9.812 & 0.007 * \\
14 & SA = U – [D –S] & 10.0(2.6) & 12.0(2.27) & 12.34(2.67) & 7.676 & 0.022 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note.* Significant difference (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Situational awareness rating technique descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test score. As stated in the above section, measurement SART elements are divided into three main groups, D, S, and U, and further into ten subgroups. A statistically significant difference was found in the understanding U and attentional supply S of SART main groups (\(p<0.05\)), but on the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference in the attentional demand D (\(p>0.05\)). Out of the ten elements of SART, seven (instability of situation, variability of situation, division of attention, spare mental capacity, information quantity, information quality, and familiarity) showed statistically insignificant differences. The three elements, complexity of the situation, arousal, and concentration, depicted significant differences. When we examined the cumulative mean of these three main groups, we found that the Oculus Quest 2 had a higher understanding U (10.69) than the monitor- (10.00) and paper-based environment (8.13). The cumulative mean values of attentional demand D were higher in the paper-based drawings (9.25) than in monitor-based (8.88) and Oculus Quest 2 (8.46), and also attentional supply S was highest in the paper-based drawing (11.13) compared with the monitor-based drawing (10.88) and Oculus Quest 2 (10.12). Attentional demand had a \(p\)-value greater than 0.05, which is an insignificant difference, and the other two attentional supply and understanding had significant differences among these three medias. The overall SA score was high ranking in the Oculus Quest 2 (12.34) and the monitor and paper-based media have a lower score (12.0 and 10.0), respectively. There was also a significant difference in the SA among all these media.