## 5 Results
### Presence
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**SPES Scale** & **Condition** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Min Value** & **Max Value** \\ \hline SPES Total & LA\_NORF & 33 & 27.24 & 6.796 & 9 & 40 \\  & LA\_RFG & 33 & 26.00 & 7.018 & 8 & 39 \\  & LA\_RFH & 33 & 26.67 & 6.542 & 13 & 39 \\  & HA\_NORF & 33 & 27.61 & 6.339 & 11 & 40 \\  & HA\_RFG & 33 & 27.94 & 6.614 & 10 & 40 \\  & HA\_RFH & 33 & 27.67 & 6.836 & 8 & 40 \\ \hline SPES & LA\_NORF & 33 & 13.24 & 4.366 & 4 & 20 \\ Self-location & LA\_RFG & 33 & 12.55 & 4.487 & 4 & 19 \\  & LA\_RFH & 33 & 13.03 & 4.073 & 4 & 19 \\  & HA\_NORF & 33 & 13.39 & 3.864 & 4 & 20 \\  & HA\_RFG & 33 & 13.48 & 4.109 & 5 & 20 \\  & HA\_RFH & 33 & 13.61 & 3.921 & 4 & 20 \\ \hline SPES & LA\_NORF & 33 & 14.00 & 3.192 & 5 & 20 \\ Possible & LA\_RFG & 33 & 13.45 & 3.270 & 4 & 20 \\ Actions & LA\_RFH & 33 & 13.64 & 3.239 & 5 & 20 \\  & HA\_NORF & 33 & 14.21 & 3.267 & 7 & 20 \\  & HA\_RFG & 33 & 14.45 & 3.401 & 5 & 20 \\  & HA\_RFH & 33 & 14.06 & 3.665 & 4 & 20 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Subjective presence levels assessed by the Spatial Presence Experience Scale (SPES) Questionnaire. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**SPES Scale** & **Condition** & **Z** & **_p_** \\ \hline SPES Total & **LA\_NORF–LA\_RFG** & \(\mathbf{-2.283}\) & **0.010 * \\  & LA\_NORF–LA\_RFH & \(-1.165\) & 0.128 \\  & HA\_NORF–HA\_RFG & \(-0.871\) & 0.189 \\  & HA\_NORF–HA\_RFH & \(-0.539\) & 0.304 \\ \hline SPES & **LA\_NORF–LA\_RFG** & \(\mathbf{-1.988}\) & **0.024 *** \\ Self-location & LA\_NORF–LA\_RFH & \(-0.385\) & 0.359 \\  & HA\_NORF–HA\_RFG & \(-0.300\) & 0.394 \\  & HA\_NORF–HA\_RFH & \(-1.174\) & 0.129 \\ \hline SPES & **LA\_NORF–LA\_RFG** & \(\mathbf{-1.885}\) & **0.030 *** \\ Possible Actions & LA\_NORF–LA\_RFH & \(-0.911\) & 0.187 \\  & HA\_NORF–HA\_RFG & \(-0.531\) & 0.309 \\  & HA\_NORF–HA\_RFH & \(-0.038\) & 0.490 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)and bold = \(p\) < 0.05 (1-tailed significance).  
\end{table} 
Table 9: Wilcoxon signed-rank test for presence—SPES scores between the no rest-frame and rest-frames conditions. size was very small. The presence was not affected when the baseball hat was used as a rest-frame in the LA mode of the game. No statistically significant differences were observed for the HA mode of the game. Although our hypothesis H4 was not confirmed, we found those results favorable, since the presence was mostly not affected by rest-frames usage. Additionally, no significant differences between the rest-frame conditions were observed for both modes of the game for all SPES scales, which did not support hypothesis H2 in terms of the presence levels. Based on cognitive involvement, a factor of spatial presence, spatial presence should be higher in HA levels of the game. When users are preoccupied with media stimuli and are highly involved with media content, they are cognitively involved. Their mental capacity is primarily devoted to the media and not to reality [30]. In our game, players were more cognitively involved while playing the high action game due to moving faster and rotating, jumping, and more coins that needed to be collected. Interestingly, we could confirm the impact of cognitive involvement on presence only for the RFG conditions of the game for the SPES Total scores, as well as for the SPES Self-location and SPES Possible Actions subscales, as shown in Table 10, which supported hypothesis H8.