## 3 Results
### Data Analysis Performed by the Studies
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & **Purpose** & & **Analysis** \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [36] & \(\bullet\) & Completion time, collision, and deviation from path was measured in a pre-training obstacle course. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & A time penalty of one second was added for each cone hit or deviation from path. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & After training in VR and MR, users reran the initial obstacle course, and the same metrics were taken. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Statistical analysis (ANOVA) was used to measure the difference of the performance before and after the training. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & To determine the reaction time an online tool called the Human Benchmark was used. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & SSQ before and after the training was completed. & \(\bullet\) \\ \[PERSON] et al. [27] & \(\bullet\) & To verify the effectiveness of the developed VR training system. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & & Obstacle collision and time taken for completion in a pre- and post-training evaluation study. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & The ANOVA test was applied comparing pre-evaluation data and post-evaluation data. & \(\bullet\) \\ \[PERSON] et al. [49] & \(\bullet\) & To identify the best training method based on a simple task, in a simulated environment on a 2D display) and in a virtual environment using a HMD. & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Compare user performance in two conditions as well as to assess the impact & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & The simulator on SoP and cybersickness. & \(\bullet\) \\  & & & Before VR: MSSQ. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Compare user performance in two conditions as well as to assess the impact & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & The simulator on SoP & \(\bullet\) \\  & & and cybersickness. & \(\bullet\) \\  & & & \\  & & & \\  & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [39] & \(\bullet\) & Compare user performance in two conditions as well as to assess the impact & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & The simulator on SoP & \(\bullet\) \\  & & and cybersickness. & \(\bullet\) \\  & & & \\  & & & \\  & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & & \(\bullet\) & IPQ and short feedback questionnaire (SFQ). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Clinicians also completed the ease of use questionnaire (EOU). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Short interview on the same topics. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for the IPQ, SFQ and EOU (clinicians only). \\  & [PERSON] [50] & \(\bullet\) & Homogeneity of variance using [PERSON]’s test for IPQ and SFQ results. \\  & \(\bullet\) & One-way ANOVA comparing the responses of clinicians and MW users. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Mann–Whitney U comparing the responses of clinicians and MW users for the SFQ. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & **Purpose** & **Analysis** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] and \\ [PERSON] [51] \\ motor skill. \\ \end{tabular}  } & \(\bullet\) & Separate analysis for each of the IPQ’s subscales, comparing users, clinicians, participants of the previous study without haptic feedback, (one-way ANOVA, with correction for unequal groups). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Deductive analysis for interviews. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] and \\ [PERSON] [51] \\ motor skill. \\ \end{tabular}  } & \(\bullet\) & Biomechanical variables of contact angle, push frequency, velocity. \\  & \(\bullet\) & All three outcomes were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. \\  & \(\bullet\) & To observe differences between baseline and short-term/retention/transfer as well as between groups, a repeated, mixed model analysis of variance was run for each of mean contact angle and push frequency with one between-subject and two within-subject factors.