# Detection of Movement Intention for Operating Methods of Serious Games
## 3 Results
### EEG for the Movement Intention Test
However, for the \(\alpha\) wave ERS in the hand gripping and gamepad operation tasks, and for the \(\beta\) wave ERS in the balance handle button task, the normality was not verified, presumably attributing to the outliers found in the process of extracting the ERS peak values. Table 2 demonstrates the comparative data from the two-way ANOVA at a significance level 0.05 to identify the difference between the tasks with the operational methods and the post-hoc analysis using the Bonferroni method. The \(\alpha\) wave ERD revealed that the Handle_I task was more significant than the other three tasks (F(3,6) = 6.914, \(p<0.05\)), and the F-value indicating the difference between the groups was clearly larger than the other groups. The \(\beta\) wave ERD showed that the Handle_I task significantly decreased for the gamepad operation task (F(3,6) = 3.567, \(p<0.05\)). On \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Peak** & **Rhythm** & **Task** & **Shapiro-Wilk Significance** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{ERD} & & Grip & 0.111 \\  & \(\alpha\) & Gampead & 0.328 \\  & 8–12 Hz & Handle\_I & 0.278 \\  & & Handle\_B & 0.746 \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Grip & 0.198 \\  & \(\beta\) & Gampead & 0.605 \\  & 12–30 Hz & Handle\_I & 0.052 \\  & & Handle\_B & 0.802 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{ERS} & & Grip & 0.006 * \\  & \(\alpha\) & Gampead & 0.023 * \\  & 8–12 Hz & Handle\_I & 0.271 \\  & & Handle\_B & 0.589 \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Grip & 0.080 \\  & \(\beta\) & Gampead & 0.090 \\  & 12–30 Hz & Handle\_I & 0.956 \\  & & Handle\_B & 0.005 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Normality tests for the ERD and ERS peak values (* \(p<0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Rhythm** & **Task** & **Relative Amplitude (\%)** & **F-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Post-hoc** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{ERD} & \(\alpha\) & Grip (a) & \(-35.2\pm 26.4\) & & & \\  & \(\alpha\) & Gampead (b) & \(-23.1\pm 23.5\) & & & \\  & 8–12 Hz & Handle\_I (c) & \(-105.7\pm 72.0\) & 6.914 & \textless{}0.00 * & (Bonferroni) \\  & & Handle\_B (d) & \(-46.8\pm 36.3\) & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & Grip (a) & \(-33.0\pm 16.4\) & & & \\  & \(\beta\) & Gampead (b) & \(-21.4\pm 44.1\) & & & \\  & 12–30 Hz & Handle\_I (c) & \(-81.1\pm 60.9\) & 3.567 & \textless{}0.02 * & (Bonferroni) \\  & & Handle\_B (d) & \(-36.3\pm 42.2\) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{ERS} & \(\alpha\) & Grip (a) & 114.0 \(\pm\) 48.2 & & & \\  & \(\alpha\) & Gampead (b) & 141.7 \(\pm\) 175.4 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 8–12 Hz & Handle\_I (c) & 188.9 \(\pm\) 122.7 & 0.782 & 0.512 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Handle\_B (d) & 171.3 \(\pm\) 86.5 & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & & Grip (a) & 120.4 \(\pm\) 67.1 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\beta\) & Gampead (b) & 107.1 \(\pm\) 117.9 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 12–30 Hz & Handle\_I (c) & 141.9 \(\pm\) 40.5 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Handle\_B (d) & 146.1 \(\pm\) 186.1 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis (data shown as the mean \(\pm\) SD, * \(p<0.05\)). the other hand, the ERS of the \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) waves demonstrated a large difference within the group but a small difference between the groups, and outliers were found in some data, indicating that these data were not suitable for comparison. Therefore, movement intention of tilting the balance handle for the \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) waves was clearly distinguished from the other tasks through ERD comparison; however, as the normality test of the ERS was not passed, there was no process characteristics found while recovering to the idle rhythm state after movement.