## 4 Data Processing and Analysis
### Data Analysis  
The effects of workplace stressors (mental stress and auditory stress) on participants' physiological indicators (EDR and HR) and near-miss recognition performance (fixation duration and time to first fixation) are explored in this section. Additionally, this study investigated the impact of low and high personality levels on participants' near-miss recognition performance under different stress conditions. Processed EDR, HR, and eye-tracking data were further utilized for analysis.  
A within-subject approach was used in which EDR and HR for each participant were decomposed and segmented for each experimental condition. Then, the average EDR and HR were used to conduct statistical analysis to evaluate the overall differences in physiological indicators of stress between baseline trials and workplace stressor trials (mental and auditory).  
This study utilized fixation duration (FD) and time to first fixation (TFF) as the eye-tracking matrices to evaluate near-miss recognition performance based on participants' visual attention and adaptation level. The total fixation duration and time to first fixation associated with each fatal four near-miss AOI were mapped for all participants, providing a data set with 490 data points for each experimental condition. Although participants conducted eye-tracking activity at their own pace, there was a limited window (15 s) to identify near-misses. Therefore, the actual duration for FD and TFF was used, omitting the need to standardize or normalize fixation data. Additionally, participants' EDR and HR data were mapped for each designated near-miss AOI to investigate near-miss recognition performance under stress conditions.  
Personality traits of individual participants were collected using the Big Five personality survey and were assessed for internal consistency using Cronbach alpha reliability analyses. Table 1 shows [PERSON]'s alpha coefficients are greater than the widely suggested acceptable value (i.e., coefficient equal to or greater than 0.70). Furthermore, [PERSON]'s tau correlation analysis examined the relationship and correlation between personality traits, psychophysiological parameters, and eye-tracking matrices for near-miss recognition. Being a non-parametric method, this method is appropriate for non-normal data with less sensitivity to outliers compared to [PERSON]'s and [PERSON]'s correlation coefficients.  
In this study, to identify proper statistical methods for comparing psychophysiological and eye-tracking matrices across baseline versus stressor conditions, exploratory data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS 28.0 software. To evaluate the parametric or non-parametric method to be adopted, [PERSON]'s normality test and the homogeneity of variances were conducted across all data sets. Results from the test indicate that EDR, FD, and TFF data were not normally distributed (\(p<0.05\) resulted from [PERSON]'s test), while the HR data provided a normal distribution (\(p>0.05\) resulted from [PERSON]'s test). Analysis results from parametric and non-parametric tests conducted on variables are presented in the sections below.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Personality Traits** & **\# of Items** & **Mean** \\ \hline Agreeable & 8 & 57.31 \\ Conscientiousness & 8 & 53.86 \\ Extraversion & 8 & 49.71 \\ Openness/Intellect & 8 & 51.26 \\ Neurotic & 8 & 28.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: [PERSON]’s alpha reliability analysis for Big 5 personality traits.