## 6 Evaluation
### Evaluation 1: User Awareness Level Test on Network Location  
**Purpose and Method of Cognition Evaluation:** To gauge the users' awareness level of the network structure created through this research, an evaluation involving 40 participants was designed. The participants were divided into two groups of 20, with one group given a simple explanation regarding the visualization for two minutes while the other group was provided with a deeper  
Figure 10: (**upper**) Movie “Avatar” TF-IDF size frequency of sentiment words and heatmap visualization. (**middle**) Movie “Ironman3,” (**lower**) movie “Masquerade.”explanation for five minutes. After a single movie node was selected from the network and the corresponding heatmap shown, participants were asked to perform a series of tasks such as \"Choose the heatmap located adjacent to (or across from) the selected node.\" The movie network was verified through three axes, as illustrated below (Figure 11). The survey contained a total of 20 questions, including five questions per axis along with an additional five questions pertaining to the node in the center of the network. Comparison of group average: For the purpose of average comparison, an independent \(t\)-test was conducted. An independent \(t\)-test was also used to verify whether a difference in population means existed between two groups that followed normal distribution N (\(\mu_{1},\sigma_{1}^{2}\)) and N (\(\mu_{2},\sigma_{2}^{2}\)) The two groups were assumed to be independent of each other [38]. For this research, in order to discover the difference in awareness levels between the two groups given either a simple or a detailed explanation on the network structure, a survey asked participants to find the heatmap that represented a particular node on the visualization map. We recruited 40 participants (20 in each group) who were majoring in related fields with an understanding of visualization. We also assumed a normal distribution in accordance with the central limit theorem. Three results on these two groups regarding network structure are presented in Table 4.  
Independent \(t\)-test results between the more-informed group and the less-informed group showed that \(P\)-values for questions in the three axes (excluding the middle area) were smaller than the alpha-value (0.05), which was the critical value of a 95% confidence level, or (0.1), which was the critical value of a 90% confidence level. This indicated a significant difference between the two groups \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Question** & \(P\)**-Value** & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Equal Variance** \\ **Assumption** \\ \end{tabular} & \(T\)**-Value** & \(P\)**-Value** &
\begin{tabular}{l} \(P\)**-Value** \\ **Hypothesis Adoption** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline b\_A–a\_A & 0.01079  & \(-2.1963\) & 0.03612  & Adopt  & Adopt  & Adopt [FOOTNOTE:]Footnote : 5 min—Group/ (Left–Right: Compare Left and Right).[ENDFOOTNOTE] \\ b\_M–b\_M & 0.6122 & Equal variance & \(-1.3635\) & 0.1809 & Dismissal \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of independent \(t\)-test analysis. Figure 11: Three axis and sentiment word directional guide for verifying the network structure. that were more-instructed and less-instructed about the network. Table 5 and Figure 12 present details regarding the two groups compared through independent \(t\)-tests. Details on the two test groups indicated that, in terms of the rate of providing correct answers for questions on all axes, the well-informed group outperformed the less-informed group in terms of network structure. For the A-axis, after being provided a further explanation about the network structure, the percentage of getting correct answers increased by 0.7. Similarly, for B-Axis, C-Axis, and center node, percentages of getting correct answers increased by 0.9, 0.85, and 0.5, respectively. Accuracy improvement was most pronounced for the A-Axis, whereas questions regarding the center node produced the lowest enhancement in performance.