## 4 Results  
### Analysis of Emotional Responses  
The participants' emotional responses to conventional parametric CAD modeling and VR free-form modeling were analyzed. After the participants completed the two designed tasks, they were asked to fill out the SAM, which consisted of the emotional valence and emotional arousal dimensions. Emotional valence was estimated in terms of pleasure levels by using a 9-point Likert scale, with a higher score indicating a higher pleasure level. Emotional arousal refers to a participant's emotional intensity and was also measured using a 9-point Likert scale, with a higher score indicating a higher emotional intensity. In the statistical results, the mean values of emotional valence and emotional arousal, as well as their corresponding line charts, standard deviations, and \(t\)-test results for both conventional parametric CAD modeling and VR free-form modeling are elaborated as shown in Figure 4 and Table 3.  
Regarding emotional valence, the results indicated that VR free-form modeling (Gravity Sketch 3D) provided the participants with a higher level of pleasure (mean = 7.39, standard deviation = 2.15) than that provided by conventional parametric CAD modeling (SolidWorks) (mean = 6.10, standard deviation = 1.92). Although a significant difference was observed between the level of pleasure resulting from the two operative techniques (\(p\) = 0.04), the means of both techniques exceeded 7, which suggested that both techniques stimulated positive emotions. However, we note that the significant difference is merely  
Figure 4: Emotional responses generated by conventional parametric CAD modeling and VR free-form modeling (unit, points; nine-point Likert scale).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Emotional Response**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standard**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(t\)-Test on the Mean**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **Mean** & **Deviation** & \(t\) & **Significance (Two-Tailed)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Emotional valence} & Free-form VR & 7.39 & 2.15 & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Parametric CAD & 6.10 & 1.92 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Emotional arousal} & Free-form VR & 7.09 & 2.02 & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Parametric CAD & 5.62 & 1.47 & 2.74 & 0.01 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Means, standard deviations, and \(t\)-test results obtained for the emotional valence and emotional arousal produced by conventional parametric CAD modeling and VR free-form modeling (unit, points; nine-point Likert scale; * \(p\) < 0.05).  
0.04, thus, necessitating caution when interpreting these results. The close proximity of the \(p\)-value to the threshold implies a relatively weak rejection of the null hypothesis. Therefore, the interpretation of results should consider the substantive context and be corroborated with other evidence.  
Regarding emotional arousal, the results suggested that VR free-form modeling generated a higher level of emotional arousal (mean = 7.09, standard deviation = 2.02) than that generated by conventional parametric CAD modeling (mean = 5.62, standard deviation = 1.47). A significant difference was observed between the level of emotional arousal resulting from the two techniques (\(p\) = 0.01), which implied that the participants experienced more intense emotions when using the VR free-form modeling technique than when using the parametric CAD modeling technique.