# Attentional Bias Modification Training in Virtual Reality: Evaluation of User Experience
## 3 Results
### Anxiety, Fatigue, and Comfort  
Table 2 displays both the comparison results and descriptive statistics for the self-reported VAS measures. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test whether the anxiety during the ABMT task differed significantly across the four series. The results showed statistically significant differences in anxiety levels across the series, with a medium effect size (Table 2), indicating that the anxiety scores varied across the series. Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant increase in anxiety across all series when compared to PrS (\(p\) < 0.05), except for the comparison between PrS and S2 (\(p\) = 0.89). To further investigate the relationship between dependence and anxiety, as previously highlighted, a two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted, with the anxiety levels across the series as a within-participant factor, and high or low dependence levels as a between-participant factor. The results confirmed statistical significance for the within-participant factor with a medium effect size, specifically the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & & **Mean (SD)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Time} & S1 & 400.38 (68.9) \\  & S2 & 384.79 (48.9) \\  & S3 & 389.69 (53.86) \\  & S4 & 389.41 (58.03) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{MTUAS} & Positive attitude & 22.78 (2.98) \\  & Negative attitude & 9.7 (2.13) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Dependence & 9.74 (2.79) \\ \hline SUS & – & 67.428 (11.4) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: S1 to S4 = series 1 to series 4; MTUAS = Media and Technology Usage and Attitude Scale; SUS = System Usability Scale; – = no subscales.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean values (and standard deviations) of the MTUAS, SUS, and time spent on each series. levels of anxiety assessed in each series (F(2.18,146.033) = 7.309, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.098), aligning with earlier one-sample \(t\)-test analyses. Additionally, significance was observed in the between-participant factor with a medium effect size for dependence (F(1,67) = 4.111, \(p\) = 0.047, \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.058), indicating that the high-dependence group experienced higher overall anxiety levels during the task compared to those of the low-dependence group. The interaction between both factors did not reach significance (F(2.18,146.033) = 0.743, \(p\) = 0.488, \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.011). This lack of significance stemmed from the consistently higher anxiety levels exhibited in the high-dependence group across all series measures when compared to the low-dependence group. A one-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in fatigue levels across the four series during the ABMT task, as indicated in Table 2. This suggests that there were variations in anxiety scores across these series, accompanied by a considerable effect size. The pairwise comparisons revealed a notable increase in fatigue throughout all the series (\(p\) < 0.05), with the exception of the comparison between S3 and S4 (\(p\) = 0.146), for which the difference did not reach statistical significance. Finally, the analysis aimed at determining if the participants' comfort levels during the ABMT task varied significantly across the four series showed statistically significant differences with a large effect size (Table 2), indicating that the participants' comfort while wearing the HMD varied across the series. The pairwise comparisons indicated a decrease in comfort for all comparisons (\(p\) < 0.05), except for those between PrS and S1, S2 and S3, S2 and S4, and S3 and S4. The correlations among all the VAS measures unveiled a moderate positive association between the anxiety values from the pre-session and series 1 to 4, alongside its corresponding fatigue measure from the pre-session and series 1 to 4 (refer to Table 3). This result shows that the participants who experienced higher anxiety levels also felt higher levels of fatigue during most of the series.