## 3 Results
### Psychometric Evaluation  
Game experience questionnaire [53] was issued to record the psychometric data in the three groups (n = 39), i.e., one control group (CC) and two experimental groups (EC1, EC2) where each group had 13 participants. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compute the effect of wayfinding cues on the users' perceived quality of experience using seven metrics [53] (Appendix A Table A1).  
Control group with no wayfinding cues exhibited a significant main effect on ratings of feeling _challenged_, F(2,36) = 4.907, \(p\) = 0.013. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test on feeling challenged indicates that the mean score for the CC (M = 2.5846 SD = 0.51291) was significantly different from the EC1 condition (M= 1.8769 SD = 0.58045). However, the EC1 (M = 2.3077 SD = 0.64091) did not significantly differ from CC and EC2 conditions as shown in Table 5. These results indicate that the control group with no wayfinding perceived the VRE as challenging compared to the two experimental groups.  
The test also revealed a statistically significant difference in mean scores of tension between at least two groups (F(2,36) = 15.700, \(p\) < 0.001). [PERSON]'s HSD test for multiple comparisons found that the mean value of tension was significantly different between CC and EC2 (\(p\) < 0.001, 95% C.I. = \([0.6490,1.6490]\)). There was no statistically significant difference between the experimental groups (\(p\) = 1.000). These findings reveal that the level of tension was higher in the group with no wayfinding cues. However, there was no difference in the level of tension or annoyance in the two experimental groups with static and dynamic wayfinding installations.  
For positive and negative affect, the significance level of \(p\) < 0.05 was observed for the three groups, and mean scores for positive affect and negative affect in CC were significantly different from EC2 (see Table 5). Although there was a difference in means for immersion, flow, and competence, ANOVA did not exhibit significant main effects of feeling immersed, competent, and inflow during the VRE as shown in Figure 10.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & & **Sum of Squares** & **df** & **Mean Square** & **F** & **Sig.** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Heart Rate**} & Between Groups & 2660.839 & 2 & 1330.419 & 15.818 & 0.000 \\  & Within Groups & 3027.957 & 36 & 84.110 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total & 5688.796 & 38 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Results from one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the HR measurements of the three groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Control Condition**} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Experimental**} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Experimental**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**(n = 13)**} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Condition 1 (n = 13)**} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Condition 2 (n = 13)**} \\ \hline  & **Means** & **SD** & **Means** & **SD** & **Means** & **SD** \\ \hline Challenge & 2.58 & 0.51 & 2.30 & 0.64 & 1.87 & 0.58 \\ Tension & 2.10 & 0.59 & 0.79 & 0.73 & 0.79 & 0.71 \\ Positive Affect & 2.44 & 0.68 & 2.78 & 0.77 & 3.27 & 0.46 \\ Negative Affect & 1.46 & 0.49 & 0.73 & 057 & 0.44 & 0.44 \\ Competence & 2.33 & 1.06 & 2.21 & 0.82 & 2.70 & 0.50 \\ Immersion & 2.66 & 0.69 & 2.91 & 0.72 & 3.03 & 0.51 \\ Flow & 3.01 & 0.51 & 2.70 & 0.60 & 2.67 & 0.75 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Mean scores of GEQ metrics for the three groups.