## 5 User Study
### Result
#### 5.5.1 MVF is Faster Than EBC  
The completion time results are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 7a,b.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Size** & **Type** & **M** & **SD** & **t** & \(p\) & **Line No.** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Locate Tasks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{Small (S)} & MVF & 19.85 & 10.98 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-\)3.15} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.003\)\({}^{**}\)} & 1 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & EBC & 31.2 & 28.51 & & & 2 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & MVF & 32.24 & 20.73 & & & 3 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & EBC & 49.94 & 27.07 & & & 4 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & MVF & 48.4 & 22.88 & & & 5 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & EBC & 102.9 & 59.75 & & & 6 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Compare Tasks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{Small (S)} & MVF & 16.93 & 7.28 & & & 7 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & EBC & 21.16 & 11.66 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)2.492} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.016\)\({}^{*}\)} & 8 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & MVF & 21.27 & 10.04 & & & 9 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & EBC & 40.25 & 25.96 & & & 10 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & MVF & 46.41 & 33.63 & & & 11 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & EBC & 85.79 & 53.43 & & 5.138 & 0.000 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Means of completion time, with the standard deviation of the measured mean in seconds. Differences in accuracy are indicated by \({}^{*}\). Significant differences in accuracy are indicated by \({}^{**}\).  
We found a significant effect of time for the model type. For both localization and comparison tasks, the MVF takes significantly less time than EBC. For the localization tasks, the completion time of the MVF is 63.6% (Table 2-1) 2), 64.6% (Table 3-3) 4), and 47% (Table 2-5) 6) of EBC in S (small), M (medium), and L (large) sizes, respectively. For L clusters, the advantage of the MVF is more obvious, and the completion time of the MVF is only 47% of that of EBC (Table 2-5) 6). For the comparison task, the completion time of the MVF was 80% (Table 2-7) 8), 52.8% (Table 2-9) 10), and 54.1% (Table 2-11) 12) of EBC on the scale of S, M, and L, respectively. For M and L clusters, the MVF has more obvious advantages, and its completion time accounts for only 52.8% (Table 2-9) 10) and 54.1% (Table 2-11) 12) of EBC (see Figure 6(a)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Size**} & **Type** & **M** & **SD** & **t** & \(p\)** & **Line No.** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Locate Tasks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{Small (S)} & MVF & 0.99 & 0.04 & \multirow{4}{*}{1.609} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.113} & \multirow{4}{*}{1} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & EBC & 0.96 & 0.17 & & & & 2 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Medium (M)} & MVF & 0.97 & 0.11 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.661} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.511} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.511} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & EBC & 0.96 & 0.13 & & & 4 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Large (L)} & MVF & 0.92 & 0.19 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.857} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.395} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.6} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & EBC & 0.88 & 0.29 & & & 6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Means of accuracy, with the standard deviation of the measured mean in percentages.  
Figure 7: Results regarding task completion time in seconds. Error bars indicate the standard deviation of the measured mean.  
We also found a significant effect of size. As expected, completion time increased for the L cluster, especially the EBC. In terms of the localization tasks, for L clusters, the completion time of the EBC increased by 106% (Table 2-4) 6), while the MVF increases by only 50% (Table 2-3) 5). In terms of comparison ability, for M clusters, the completion time of the EBC increased by 90.2% (Table 2-8) 10), while the MVF increased by only 25.6% (Table 2-7) 9) (Figure 7b). Hence, H1 was accepted.