## 4 Results and Discussion
### Results of the Survey and Statistical Analysis  
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and [PERSON]'s test of sphericity indicators indicate the degree to which the correlation between variables is well explained by other variables, and low values suggest that the variables are not appropriate for PCA. The KMO value for the survey in the study is 0.830, and the probability of significance (\(p\)) is less than the significance level (0.001), so the model fit is high. RA shows that a [PERSON]'s \(\alpha\) value of 0.6 or higher is generally accepted as reliable, and the reliability of the study is very high with a total component of [PERSON]'s \(\alpha\) = 0.896; the Cronbach's \(\alpha\) of Component 1, Component 2, Component 3, Component 4, and Component 5 was 0.867, 0.832, 0.829, 0.903, and 0.744, respectively. In addition, the eigenvalue of the extracted components indicates the amount of variance in the component, with a value greater than 1 being significant, and all five components were found to be the main auditory components considered in the metaverse environment. Commonality values below 0.4 are subject to removal, but all of the components were above 0.5, so no components were removed. The results are shown in Table 11.  
The results in Table 11 show that the cumulative variance of the five components, including'realistic auditory background' and 'acoustic aesthetics', is 70.458%, which can explain more than 70% of the auditory experience of the metaverse environment, so it is believed that improving these components can improve the sense of presence. Component 1, which is explained by 35.320% (variance) of the total factors, consists of QNs 1, 2, 10, 5, and 16, and has the characteristics of'realistic auditory background implementation' in that it considers the positional and spatial characteristics of sounds in the metaverse environment and the implementation of everyday soundscapes and auditory backgrounds (such as background music and everyday noises) that can evoke a place. In particular, considering that 'Component 1' is derived from the AUX factors 'harmonization between digital and natural sounds' (QN 16) and 'auditory presence factors related to constructing a realistic sound environment' (QNs 1, 2, 10, 5), it can be interpreted that the auditory  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Interview Question**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Auditory Evaluation Factors**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Expert Answers**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **P4** & **P5** & **P6** & **P7** & **P8** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} Please create terminology for the quality to understand auditory presence and natural sounds \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{Consistent} & Content & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} Change of \\ identity \\ \end{tabular}  } & Change of & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} Sound \\ mood \\ \end{tabular}  } \\ \cline{1-1}  &  
environment of the metaverse should not be implemented as it is in reality, but should seek harmonization with existing digital sounds, which can enhance the sense of presence. Component 2, described as 12.330% of the total factor, consists of QNs 3, 4, 18, and 20. Component 2 is characterized as 'acoustic aesthetics' in terms of fewer bad sounds, clearer sounds, auditory discomfort, and user revisits due to sounds in the metaverse environment. The reason why factors such as QNs 3, 4, 18, and 20 were derived as 'Component 2' is that the auditory presence factor (QNs 3, 4), which is related to acoustic quality, considers 'willingness to return due to sound' (QN 20), which tends to be a strong AUX evaluation factor These results suggest that users' 'willingness to return due to sound' (QN 20) does not directly increase presence, but can function as a checklist for presence by ensuring that 'Component 2' has no issues with sound quality if metaverse use is low (QNs 3, 4).