## 6 Results
### Usability: SUS Score and Survey Responses  
Table 2 presents SUS scores for each method. RM ANOVA on the SUS score showed a significant difference among the browsing method. Hearlt achieved the highest SUS on average (87.1), followed by Partial-Hearlt (83.1) and Baseline (74.4). The posthoc test revealed a significant difference between Hearlt and Baseline, while the other pairwise comparison tests were not significant.  
Our qualitative data supplement the results. First, all the participants preferred the paragraph-level skip control over the time-level skip control. There were many responses that the paragraph-level skip control is convenient to explore the information quickly. For example, P1 said, _\"It helped me skip the unnecessary information when I remember the content to some extent\"_. P11 also commented, _\"I could organize the content of information easily in my head when I use paragraph-level skip control\"_. One participant (P7) mentioned that the time-level skip is still needed by saying, _\"For the more sophisticate playback control, the time-level skip control is still useful\"_.  
Second, all the participants liked to use the auditory cues in their auditory information browsing. The positional cue is helpful when the user approximately remembers the targeted position related to the given context. P4 said _\"I could skip the unnecessary paragraph quickly based on the positional cue\"_. Similarly, P8 commented, _\"Because I listened to the entire audio at first, the paragraph number is enough for me to know what topics were covered here\"_.  
However, most of the participants (91.6%) preferred using both additional cues. The topical cue helped the participant quickly evaluate the relevance of the current playback position. P12 said, _\"With the topical cue, I could be more confident in guessing the topics of  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Item**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Baseline**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Partial-**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hearlt**} \\  & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Satisfaction} & I think that I would like to use this system frequently. & 3.25 (1.06) & 3.92 (0.51) & 4.75 (0.45) \\ \cline{2-5}  & I felt very confident using the system. & 3.92 (0.90) & 4.25 (0.75) & 4.75 (0.45) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ease of **use**} & \multirow{3}{*}{I found the system unnecessarily complex.} & 1.75 (1.06) & 1.50 (0.52) & 1.83 (1.19) \\ \cline{2-5}  & I thought the system was easy to use. & 3.90 (1.00) & 4.50 (0.67) & 4.50 (0.52) \\ \cline{2-5}  & I found the various functions in this system were well integrated. & 3.08 (0.79) & 3.92 (0.51) & 4.58 (0.51) \\ \cline{2-5}  & I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system. & 1.58 (0.79) & 1.33 (0.49) & 1.50 (0.52) \\ \cline{2-5}  & I found the system very cumbersome to use. & 2.08 (1.16) & 1.58 (0.51) & 1.50 (0.52) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ease of **Learning**} & \multirow{3}{*}{I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.} & 1.75 (0.75) & 1.58 (0.67) & 2.00 (1.21) \\ \cline{2-5}  & I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly. & 4.67 (0.65) & 4.50 (0.52) & 4.33 (0.78) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & \multirow{3}{*}{I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.} & 1.42 (0.67) & 1.83 (0.83) & 1.75 (0.75) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
*: Reversed items.  
\end{table}
Table 2: System Usability Scale results: mean (SD).  
Figure 4: One-way repeated measures ANOVA and posthoc test results.  
the following part\"_. P5 commented, _\"Topical cue helped me explore what 1 forgot\"_. Finally, the participants mostly heard the top three keywords in the topical cues and decided whether to skip or play its main audio.