# A Comparative Study of Design Evaluation with Virtual Prototypes Versus a Physical Product
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Providing Feedback
Emotional responses (valence): Table 10a indicates that there were significant differences in the responses of the five groups with regard to the valence construct. According to the multiple comparisons shown in Table 10), the responses of the combined feedback group were different than those of the visual virtual (\(-1\)) and auditory feedback (\(-2\)) groups. The combined feedback group produced a valence level that was higher than that of the physical group. All the feedback groups were in a more positive state in comparison to the visual virtual group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{(**a**)} \\ \hline
**Source** & **DF** & **Adj SS** & **Adj MS** & **F** & **P** \\ \hline Regression & 10 & 161.756 & 16.176 & 5.93 & 0.000 \\ Virtual versus Physical & 4 & 121.577 & 30.394 & 11.15 & 0.000 \\ Error & 179 & 488.054 & 2.727 & & \\ Pure Error & 116 & 295.566 & 2.548 & & \\ Total & 189 & 649.811 & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{(**b**)} \\ \hline
**Term** & **Coef** & **SE Coef** & **T** & **P** & **VIF** \\ \hline Constant & 1.81 & 1.08 & 1.67 & 0.096 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Virtual versus Physical**} \\ \hline \(-3\) & 0.073 & 0.475 & 0.15 & 0.878 & 2.09 \\ \(-2\) & 0.325 & 0.446 & 0.73 & 0.467 & 1.84 \\ \(-1\) & 2.822 & 0.692 & 4.08 & 0.000 & 6.47 \\ \(1\) & 0.903 & 0.757 & 1.19 & 0.234 & 7.73 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SS: Sum of squares; DF: Degrees of freedom; MS: Mean square. VIF: Variance inflation factor.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: (**a**) ANOVA for the valence construct of the cleaning task with different feedbacks. (**b**) Multiple comparisons of the valence construct for integrated feedback. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{(**a**)} \\ \hline
**Source** & **DF** & **Adj SS** & **Adj MS** & **F** & **P** \\ \hline Regression & 10 & 87.470 & 8.747 & 2.65 & 0.005 \\ Virtual versus Physical & 4 & 71.840 & 17.960 & 5.43 & 0.000 \\ Error & 179 & 591.772 & 3.306 & & \\ Pure Error & 116 & 382.664 & 3.299 & & \\ Total & 189 & 679.242 & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{(**b**)} \\ \hline
**Term** & **Coef** & **SE Coef** & **T** & **P** & **VIF** \\ \hline Constant & 4.46 & 1.19 & 3.74 & 0.000 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Virtual versus Physical**} \\ \hline \(-3\) & 0.724 & 0.523 & 1.38 & 0.168 & 2.09 \\ \(-2\) & 0.948 & 0.491 & 1.93 & 0.055 & 1.84 \\ \(-1\) & 0.732 & 0.762 & 0.96 & 0.338 & 6.47 \\ \(1\) & \(-0.881\) & 0.833 & \(-1.06\) & 0.291 & 7.73 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SS: Sum of squares; DF: Degrees of freedom; MS: Mean square. VIF: Variance inflation factor.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: (**a**) ANOVA for the arousal construct of the cleaning task with different feedbacks. (**b**) Multiple comparisons of the arousal construct for integrated feedback. Emotional responses (arousal): From Table 11a, it can be seen that there was a significant difference in the responses of the five groups with regard to the arousal construct. Specifically, the difference existed between the combined feedback group and the visual feedback group (Table 11b). The combined group had the highest level of arousal. Emotional responses (dominance): A significant difference was not observed in the responses of the five groups with regard to the dominance construct. In summary, the addition of combined feedback (visual and auditory) produced a statistically significant improvement with regard to the valence and arousal constructs, when performing the cleaning and dirt-offloading tasks with the virtual prototypes. The emotional states created in this manner could match those induced by using the actual product in the test results. In the experiments,