## 5 Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Work
### Discussion of Results
#### 5.1.3 Systematic Findings from Field Studies  
This study obtained rich and reliable empirical data through two phases of systematic fieldwork. As shown in Table 6, the sample was expanded from 659 participants in the first phase to 1338 in the second phase, representing 102.8% growth. More importantly, the research sites were expanded from primarily institutional settings in the first phase to include diverse contexts such as performance events (n = 452), school settings (n = 285), and early education institutions (n = 215) in the second phase, enhancing the external validity of the research findings.  
The analysis of the system optimization's effectiveness demonstrated significant improvements. The overall SUS score increased from 77.85 (\(\pm\)2.31) to 82.15 (\(\pm\)2.15), showing a 5.52% improvement (\(p\) < 0.001, [PERSON]'s d = 0.92). In terms of learnability, the scores improved from 89.12 (\(\pm\)1.98) to 94.12 (\(\pm\)1.87), representing a 5.61% increase (\(p\) < 0.01, d = 0.86). Most notably, the usability scores showed the most significant improvement, rising from 75.03 (\(\pm\)2.45) to 82.46 (\(\pm\)2.33), marking a 9.90% increase (\(p\) < 0.001, d = 1.24). All these metrics showed statistical significance with large effect sizes (d > 0.8), indicating that the system's optimization achieved its intended effects.  
The further analysis of the usage context's effects revealed clear advantages in group interaction settings. As shown in Table 3, the overall SUS score in institutional group settings reached 85.32, significantly higher than the 77.85 in individual home service settings. Similarly, superior performance was demonstrated, in terms of learnability (92.12 vs. 89.12) and usability (83.63 vs. 75.03). These findings support the positive impact of social interaction on elderly users' technology use.  
The six-dimensional analysis (as shown in Figure 11) further corroborated the advantages of group contexts. Except for operational convenience, the group contexts demonstrated statistically significant advantages across all the evaluation dimensions (ps < 0.001), with most dimensions achieving large effect sizes (ds > 0.8). Particularly compelling were the large effect sizes observed for attractiveness (d = 1.35), social interaction (d = 1.28), and expectation (d = 1.24), highlighting the crucial importance of group activity modes.  
The analysis across different user groups revealed particularly informative patterns:  
1. Dementia group:  
* Overall SUS score: 85.32;
* Notable strengths in social interaction (4.3/5.0); ease of use (4.5/5.0); and attractiveness (4.2/5.0).
2. Sub-healthy group:  
* Significant improvements in physical activity motivation (4.2/5.0); social participation (4.4/5.0); and sense of achievement (4.0/5.0).
3. Healthy group:Highest performance in technology acceptance (4.3/5.0); learning motivation (4.2/5.0); and expectations (4.2/5.0).  
This comparison across the user groups reveals that, while each group showed distinct strengths, all three groups demonstrated significant benefits from the system, particularly in terms of the social interaction and engagement aspects. The dementia group showed unexpected proficiency, in terms of ease of use, supporting the effectiveness of the system's intuitive design. The sub-healthy group demonstrated notable improvements in physical activity engagement, while the healthy group exhibited the highest technology acceptance, suggesting potential for extended applications.