## 3 Results  
### The Response Time at the Four Proficiency Levels  
The response times for system-malfunction and system-limit failures at the four proficiency levels are shown in Table 1. For facilitating visual observation, Figure 3 illustrates the data of response time and SD from Table 1. In the figures and tables, \"Malfun\" stands for system-malfunction failure, while \"Limit\" stands for system-limit failure. \"SD\" stands for standard deviation. These notations will be used consistently throughout the subsequent figures and tables.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Proficiency Level** & **Failure Type** & **Response Time** & **SD** & **RML-RT 1** & **MProf-RT 2** & **LProf-RT 3** \\ \hline
1. Inexperienced & Malfun & 39.194 & 22.106 & 3.644 & 1.671 & 1.133 \\  & Limit & 10.756 & 15.871 & — & — & — \\
2. Low Proficiency & Malfun & 23.450 & 24.754 & 2.471 & 1.437 & 1.514 \\  & Limit & 9.490 & 15.737 & — & — & — \\
3. Moderate & Malfun & 16.317 & 18.241 & 2.604 & 1.089 & 1.900 \\ Proficiency & Limit & 6.267 & 9.732 & — & — & — \\
4. High Proficiency & Malfun & 14.988 & 18.786 & 4.545 & — & — \\  & Limit & 3.298 & 1.404 & — & — & — \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{1}\) RML-RT stands for the ratio of system-malfunction failure response time to system-limit failure response time.
* \({}^{2}\) MProf-RT stands for the ratio of response time between low proficiency level and the adjacent higher proficiency level in the case of system-malfunction failure. \({}^{3}\) LProf-RT stands for the ratio of response time between low proficiency level and the adjacent higher proficiency level in the case of system-limit failure.  
\end{table}
Table 1: The response time for system-malfunction and system-limit failures at four proficiency levels.  
Figure 3: The response time for system-malfunction and system-limit failures at four proficiency levels.  
The statistical analysis results showed that at various levels of proficiency, the response time for resolving failures under system-malfunction conditions was significantly longer than the response time under system-limit conditions (\(p=0.000<0.001\), F = 18.138). The ratio of response time between system-malfunction and system-limit failure, at proficiency levels 1 (inexperienced) to 4 (highly proficient), was 3.644, 2.471, 2.604, and 4.545, respectively. These ratios suggested that at lower proficiency levels (levels 1-3), the difference between response times for system-malfunction and system-limit failures remained relatively constant. However, at higher proficiency level (level 4), the gap between these two types of failure response times widens, indicating that highly proficient operators became more responsive as their understanding and proficiency in handling system-limit failures deepened, while showing less improvement in responding to system-malfunction failures.  
Proficiency level had a significant impact on the response time for resolving failures under system-malfunction conditions (\(p<0.05\)). As proficiency level increased, the response time for resolving failures significantly decreased. The ratio of response time between adjacent proficiency levels, from lower to higher, was 1.671, 1.437, and 1.089. This indicated that at lower proficiency levels, increasing proficiency greatly reduced the response time. However, when the proficiency level was already relatively high, the promoting effect on response time became less pronounced.  
Proficiency level had a significant impact on the response time for resolving failures under system-limit conditions (\(p<0.05\)). As proficiency level increased, the response time for resolving failures significantly decreased. The ratio of response time between adjacent proficiency levels, from lower to higher, showed a monotonic increase: 1.133, 1.514, and 1.900. This indicated that as proficiency level became higher, the beneficial promotion in reducing response time became more pronounced.