## 4 Case Study
### Results
#### 4.2.2 Network Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node** & **Degree \({}^{\star}\)** & **Betweenness \({}^{\star}\)** & **Eigenvector \({}^{\star}\)** & **Node Type** \\ \hline Type of control & 25 (1) & 107.1 (1) & 0.281 (1) & Design variable \\ Gesture shape & 16 (2) & 42.5 (2) & 0.151 (7) & Design variable \\ Easy & 14 (3) & 17.2 (4) & 0.197 (2) & Value dimension \\ Various & 14 (3) & 30 (3) & 0.142 (8) & Design variable \\ Convenience & 13 (5) & 16.9 (5) & 0.187 (3) & Value dimension \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Good feeling & 10 (6) & 1.9 (14) & 0.17 (4) & Value dimension \\ Controllability & 10 (6) & 1.9 (14) & 0.17 (4) & Design variable \\ Age & 10 (6) & 1.9 (14) & 0.17 (4) & Value dimension \\ New & 9 (9) & 7.8 (8) & 0.124 (11) & Value dimension \\ Leisure & 9 (9) & 10.5 (6) & 0.118 (12) & Value dimension \\ Interest & 9 (9) & 7.8 (8) & 0.115 (13) & Value dimension \\ Desire to use & 8 (12) & 8 (7) & 0.093 (25) & Value dimension \\ Conventional & 7 (13) & 0 (30) & 0.142 (8) & Value dimension \\ Novel & 7 (13) & 3.8 (11) & 0.113 (14) & Value dimension \\ Quality of life & 7 (13) & 4.5 (10) & 0.087 (28) & Value dimension \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The numbers in parentheses represent ranks in the corresponding centrality. ** Core value dimensions.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Centrality of representative nodes associated with fun. Figure 4: Partial semantic network of convenience (red and blue nodes indicate core values and design variables, respectively). Network Analysis of Fatigue  
The third core value dimension fatigue was also separately analyzed with a co-occurrence matrix that included 52 co-occurrence rows. Node-level centralities were quantified (Table 4). As a result, nodes such as convenience, stressful, exactness, desire to use, irritation, range of motion, and subtle were regarded as important in terms of the degree centrality. Negatively described nodes such as stressful and irritation were unsurprisingly related to fatigue. The semantic network belonging to fatigue is shown in Figure 6, where only nodes with degree centralities of at least seven are shown and eigenvector centralities are indicated by node size. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node** & **Degree \({}^{\star}\)** & **Betweenness \({}^{\star}\)** & **Eigenvector \({}^{\star}\)** & **Node Type** \\ \hline Convenience & 17 (1) & 37.8 (1) & 0.277 (1) & Value dimension \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Stressful & 15 (2) & 32.8 (2) & 0.205 (3) & Value dimension \\ Exactness & 13 (3) & 16.6 (4) & 0.236 (2) & Design variable \\ Desire to use & 13 (3) & 21.6 (3) & 0.191 (5) & Value dimension \\ Irritation & 10 (5) & 6.9 (7) & 0.195 (4) & Value dimension \\ Range of motion & 10 (5) & 7.8 (6) & 0.183 (6) & Design variable \\ Subtle & 10 (5) & 9.4 (5) & 0.176 (7) & Value dimension \\ Limited & 8 (8) & 2.3 (10) & 0.161 (8) & Value dimension \\ Learnability & 8 (8) & 5.7 (8) & 0.122 (18) & Value dimension \\ Intuitive & 7 (10) & 2.8 (9) & 0.157 (9) & Value dimension \\ Hand tremor & 7 (10) & 0.2 (27) & 0.157 (9) & Value dimension \\ Control frequency & 7 (10) & 0.2 (27) & 0.157 (9) & Design variable \\ Repetitive & 7 (10) & 0.2 (27) & 0.157 (9) & Design variable \\ Range of control & 7 (10) & 0.6 (16) & 0.143 (13) & Design variable \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The numbers in parentheses represent ranks in the corresponding centrality. ** Core value dimensions.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Centrality of representative nodes associated with fatigue. Figure 5: Partial semantic network of fun (red and blue nodes indicate core values and design variables, respectively).