## 3 Results  
### Subjective Scales  
ANOVA results for 3D-SART are presented in Table 1. For the SA score of 3D-SART, the interaction effect between air route alternation and display design was significant (F (2, 46) = 3.755, \(p=0.031\)). The SA score in air-route-altered condition was significantly lower than that in the air-route-as-planned condition for Interface 1 (F (1, 23) = 5.990, \(p=0.022\)) and Interface 3 (F (1, 23) = 7.791, \(p=0.010\)). In terms of Interface 2, no significant difference was observed in the SA score between the two air route alternation conditions (\(p>0.05\)). Furthermore, for the ARS score, the interaction effect of air route alternation and display design was not significant (\(p>0.05\)) while the main effect of air route was significant (F (1, 23) = 10.439, \(p=0.004\)). The ARS in air-route-altered condition was 79.54% lower than that in the air-route-as-planned condition. There was a significant effect of air route alternation on mental workload (F (1, 23) = 17.210, \(p<0.001\)) (Table 1). Mental workload in the air-route-altered condition was significantly higher than that in the air-route-as-planned condition. ANOVA results for operation accuracy are presented in Table 2. For overall operation accuracy (involving all operations, such as speed, altitude and course), the interaction effect was not significant, while the main effects for both air route alternation (F (1, 23) = 169.542, \(p<0.001\)) and display design (F (2, 46) = 4.744, \(p=0.013\)) were significant. Compared with the overall operation accuracy in the air-route-as-planned condition, it declined in the air-route-altered condition. Besides, the overall operation accuracy in Interface 2 was higher than that in Interface 3. In the further analysis of the various flight attitude parameters (i.e., altitude, speed and course), we can find that air route alternation (F (1, 23) = 25.520, \(p<0.001\)) and display design (F (1.464, 33.663) = 5.562, \(p=0.014\)) had significant main effects on altitude operation accuracy, while their interaction effect was not significant (\(p>0.05\)). The altitude operation accuracy in the air-route-altered condition was lower than that in the air-route-as-planned condition, and it was higher in Interface 2 than that in Interface 3. Moreover, the air route yielded a significant main effect on both speed operation accuracy (F (1, 23) = 41.812, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Air Route Alternation**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Display Design**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Interaction**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**As**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Planned**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Altered**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**ES**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Interface 1**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Interface 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Interface 3**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**ES**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \hline
3D-SART (-) & \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 5.677 \\ (0.370) \\ (0.206) \\ \end{tabular} } & 4.938 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.018} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.222} & 5.563 (0.312) & \multirow{3}{*}{5.188 (0.346)} & \multirow{3}{*}{5.156 (0.344)} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.065} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.112} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.031 *} \\ ARS & (0.611 & 0.125 & & & & & & & \\ (0.206) & (0.211) & & & & & & & & \\ NASA-TLX (-) & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} 10.787 \\ (0.589) \\ \end{tabular} } & 12.676 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.004 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.312} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.438 (0.208)} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.240 (0.208)} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.427 (0.239)} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.447} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.034} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.139} \\ Workload & (0.789) & & & & & & & \\ (0.535) & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{Note: * Significant difference at the 0.05 level; ** Significant difference at the 0.001 level. Partial n\({}^{2}\) was used to calculate the effect size (ES)} \\ for the ANOVA results. ARS = attention resource surplus.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}