# Eye Tracking and Semantic Evaluation for Ceramic Teapot Product Modeling
## 4 Results
### Analysis of Experimental Results of Preference for Different Shape Combinations of Ceramic Teapots
#### 4.3.2 The Effect of Different Age Groups on the Results of Ceramic Teapot Perceptual Evaluation  
The mean values of the scores of the 60 subjects on the 10 semantic word pairs were categorized according to age groups and then analyzed by ANOVA in order to analyze the effect of different age groups on the results of the evaluation of the perception of ceramic teapots.  
As can be seen from Table 8, there is no significance for the 9 semantic word pairs in different age groups (\(p\) > 0.05), and the degree of perception shows a high unity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Semantic Difference** & **Male (\(n\) = 30)** & **Females (\(n\) = 30)** & \(t\) & \(p\) \\ \hline lightness-bulkiness & \(-\)0.08 \(\pm\) 0.98 & \(-\)0.04 \(\pm\) 1.03 & \(-\)0.172 & 0.864 \\ \hline hardness-warmth & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.90 & 0.132 & 0.895 \\ \hline plainness-gorgeousnessness & \(-\)0.45 \(\pm\) 0.79 & \(-\)0.18 \(\pm\) 0.84 & \(-\)1.297 & 0.200 \\ \hline classicness–individuality & \(-\)0.03 \(\pm\) 0.68 & \(-\)0.07 \(\pm\) 0.79 & 0.232 & 0.817 \\ \hline lightness–thickness & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.62 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.84 & \(-\)0.002 & 0.999 \\ \hline comfortable–uncomfortable & \(-\)0.55 \(\pm\) 0.76 & \(-\)0.47 \(\pm\) 0.96 & \(-\)0.345 & 0.732 \\ \hline passion–tranquility & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.57 & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 4.073 & 0.000 ** \\ \hline freedom–binding & \(-\)0.41 \(\pm\) 0.75 & \(-\)0.54 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 0.565 & 0.574 \\ \hline looseness–tightness & \(-\)0.37 \(\pm\) 0.77 & \(-\)0.58 \(\pm\) 0.99 & 0.915 & 0.364 \\ \hline harmony–hardness & \(-\)0.59 \(\pm\) 0.73 & \(-\)0.57 \(\pm\) 1.05 & \(-\)0.080 & 0.937 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Comparison of \(t\)-tests for gender and semantic word pairs.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Semantic Difference**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**20–35 (\(n\) = 20)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**36–50 (\(n\) = 20)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(>\)50 (\(n\) = 20)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**f**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**95\% Confidence**} \\  & & & & & & & Interval for the Mean & & Partial \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & & & & & & **Hoor** & **Hoor** & **Hoor** \\ \hline lightness–bulkiness & 0.33\(\pm\)0.56 & \(-\)0.16 \(\pm\) 1.31 & \(-\)0.36 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 2.680 & 0.077 & \(-\)0.3172 & 0.1987 & 0.086 & 0.307 \\ \hline hardness–warmth & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 0.544 & 0.583 & 0.3566 & 0.8063 & 0.019 & 0.138 \\ \hline plainness–gorgeousnessness & \(-\)0.42 \(\pm\) 0.63 & \(-\)0.01 \(\pm\) 0.75 & \(-\)0.54 \(\pm\) 0.99 & 2.455 & 0.095 & \(-\)0.5267 & \(-\)0.1029 & 0.079 & 0.293 \\ \hline classicness–individuality & \(-\)0.04 \(\pm\) 0.43 & \(-\)0.10 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 0.104 & 0.901 & \(-\)0.2375 & 0.1412 & 0.004 & 0.060 \\ \hline lightness–thickness & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.57 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.62 & 0.351 & 0.706 & 0.0221 & 0.4001 & 0.012 & 0.111 \\ \hline comfortable–uncomfortable & \(-\)0.39 \(\pm\) 0.63 & \(-\)0.48 \(\pm\) 0.91 & \(-\)0.68 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 0.592 & 0.557 & \(-\)0.7349 & \(-\)0.2911 & 0.020 & 0.144 \\ \hline passion–tranquility & 0.30 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.90 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.69 & 0.446 & 0.642 & 0.2019 & 0.6537 & 0.015 & 0.125 \\ \hline freedom–binding & \(-\)0.23 \(\pm\) 0.55 & \(-\)0.54 \(\pm\) 0.93 & \(-\)0.66 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 1.361 & 0.264 & \(-\)0.6919 & \(-\)0.2600 & 0.046 & 0.219 \\ \hline looseness–tightness & \(-\)0.47 \(\pm\) 0.69 & \(-\)0.48 \(\pm\) 0.97 & \(-\)0.50 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 0.006 & 0.994 & \(-\)0.7091 & \(-\)0.2502 & 0.000 & 0.014 \\ \hline harmony–hardness & \(-\)0.53 \(\pm\) 0.45 & \(-\)0.65 \(\pm\) 0.97 & \(-\)0.55 \(\pm\) 1.17 & 0.099 & 0.906 & \(-\)0.8075 & \(-\)0.3443 & 0.003 & 0.059 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: ANOVA for age group and semantic word pairs.