## 3 Results
### System Test  
Based on the system design, the following tests were conducted on the system from multiple aspects to verify its feasibility.  
The handles were operated in the front, back, left, and right directions, and the number of operations was explored from 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50, respectively. Figure 6 shows the relevant data of the sensitivity test of the handle in different directions.  
Figure 5: System function structure diagram.  
According to Figure 6a, the sensitivities of the left and right operating handles for 10 times were 99.89% and 99.90%, respectively; the sensitivities of the left and right operating handles for 30 times were 99.65% and 99.63%, respectively; and, the sensitivities of operating the left and right handle for 50 times were 99.38% and 99.36%, respectively.  
According to Figure 6b, the sensitivities operating the handles on the front and back sides for 10 times were 99.93% and 99.83%, respectively; the sensitivity operating the handles on the front and back sides for 30 times were 99.74% and 99.50%, respectively; the sensitivities operating the handle on the front and back sides for 50 times were 99.49% and 99.21%, respectively.  
The length of the delay time is a good indicator of the fluency of a system. Table 2 shows the relevant data of the delay time of the transformation of indoor decoration props in the system. The transformation of props for different interior decoration items, sizes, shapes, for random operation is also shown.  
It can be seen, from Table 2, that, when the number of interior decoration props was 2, the delay time was 0.258 s; when the number of interior decoration props was 4, the delay time was 0.425 s; when the number of interior decoration props was 6, the delay time was 0.679 s; when the number of interior decoration props was 8, the delay time was 0.905 s; when the number of interior decoration props was 10, the delay time was 1.320 s.  
By analyzing response time and lag time, the smooth performance of the system can be better reflected. Figure 7 shows the relevant data of the system stability, safety, response time, and stuck time tests.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Transformations** & **Delay Time** \\ \hline
2 & 0.258 s \\
4 & 0.425 s \\
6 & 0.679 s \\
8 & 0.905 s \\
10 & 1.320 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Delay time of interior decoration props transformation (s).  
Figure 6: Sensitivity test of handle in different directions. (**a**)—left and right; (**b**)—front and rear.  
According to Figure 7a, when the number of users using the system was 20, the stability and security of the system were 99.36% and 99.48%, respectively; when the number of users using the system was 40, the stability and security of the system were 99.04% and 98.91%, respectively; and, when the number of users using the system was 60, the stability and security of the system were 98.72% and 98.40%, respectively.  
According to Figure 7b, when the number of users using the system was 20, the system response time and stuck time were 0.372 s and 0.128 s, respectively; when the number of users using the system was 40, the system response time and stuck time were 0.561 s and 0.243 s, respectively; and, when the number of users using the system was 60, the system response time and stuck time were 0.834 s and 0.322 s, respectively.