## 3 Results  
When conducting the 2 \(\times\) 3 mixed-model ANOVA, general statistically significant interactions were determined (F = 6.24; \(p<0.01\)). In Table 1, more detailed results of the conducted statistical analysis are presented. Table 1 shows descriptive statistical parameters for both tested groups in all the tested conditions of wearing protective headgear. Additionally, the table shows the results of the mixed-model ANOVA for prior helmet users and non-users (between factor) in all the tested conditions (within factor). Statistically significant interactions were determined for the reaction time when the skier was approaching both from the left (\(p<0.01\), F = 7.48) and right (\(p<0.01\), F = 9.85) side. [PERSON]'s post hoc test (Tables 2 and 3) was used to further analyze significant interactions for each variable. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Helmet Users**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Helmet Non-Users**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Interaction**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **Helmet*Condition** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **x \(\pm\) SD** & **x \(\pm\) SD** & **x \(\pm\) SD** & **x \(\pm\) SD** & **x \(\pm\) SD** & **x \(\pm\) SD** & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline Left side\_rt & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 7.48 & \textless{}0.01 * \\ \hline Right side\_rt & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 9.85 & \textless{}0.01 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: * \(p<0.05\); Left side\_rt—Reaction time when the skier is approaching from the left side; Right side\_rt—Reaction time when the skier is approaching from the right side. Condition 1—Ski cap; Condition 2—Ski cap and sunglasses; Condition 3—Ski helmet and ski goggles.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for both groups in three tested conditions of wearing protective headgear and results of 2 \(\times\) 3 mixed-model ANOVA for each variable. Table 2 shows [PERSON]'s post hoc results for reaction time to visual stimuli when appearing on the left side. When observing the results for helmet non-users, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing conditions 1 and 3 (\(p<0.01\)). There was also a difference when comparing conditions 2 and 3 (\(p<0.01\)). It can also be concluded that helmet non-users in condition 3 differed from all other conditions for helmet non-users and users (\(p\leq 0.01\)). When observing solely helmet users, there was a statistically significant difference between conditions 4 and 6 (\(p<0.01\)). Furthermore, a significant difference was found when comparing the results for helmet users between conditions 5 and 6 (\(p<0.01\)). When comparing the results of helmet users and helmet non-users in the same tested conditions, there was no statistically significant difference in interactions when comparing interactions 1 and 4 (\(p=0.59\)) and 2 and 5 (\(p=1.00\)). However, a statistically significant difference was found between interactions 3 and 6 (\(p<0.01\)), which means there was a difference in the time required to react to a visual stimulus when it appears on the left side of the participant between interaction helmet non-users*ski helmet + goggles and interaction helmet users*ski helmet + goggles. Helmet users had a faster response on the visual stimuli when wearing a ski helmet and goggles compared to helmet non-users (0.50 s vs. 0.54 s). Table 2 shows [PERSON] post hoc results for reaction time to visual stimuli when appearing on the right side. When observing the results for helmet non-users, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing conditions 1 and 3 (\(p<0.01\)). There was also a difference when comparing conditions 2 and 3 (\(p<0.01\)). It can also be concluded that helmet non-users in condition 3 differ from all other conditions for helmet non-users and users (\(p<0.01\)).