## 4 Experimental Results
### User Test
In addition, the increased participants had deteriorated the overall UX. Figure 12 compares the two UXs including cybersickness on the radar chart. The higher the value for cybersickness, the less is the likelihood for motion sickness, and the interactive experience had an average value of 3.73, which was evaluated to be superior to the average one-way experience value of 3.12. The restrictions on rotation by the HMD and interactivity had a positive impact on minimizing cybersickness. The restrictions on viewing angle can also be controlled in the one-way experience, but the huge reduction in the spatial realism of the UX had a negative impact overall. Figure 11: Comparison of UX between the one-way and interactive experiences: an average value of the participants in the second survey is used for assessing the level of influence of interaction components, change of POV (P), clothes (C), effect (E), and sound (S), on user experiences, interest (I), immersion (M), fun (F), and usability (U). A \(t\)-test was conducted for an objective comparison of the average user satisfaction value data obtained from the UX. As shown in Table 3, the average value, standard deviation, \(t\)-value, and \(p\)-value by the UX were calculated with each of the interaction components used as independent variables. Based on the \(t\)-test results, all the variables except sound were within the 99% confidence interval, indicating that the corresponding interaction components (POV, clothing, and effect) had a significant impact on the UX. On the other hand, it was difficult to assess the impact of the change in sound on the immersion of the UX objectively. In summary, the IVR fashion show with interaction components applied can be evaluated to convey higher UX satisfaction in most interactions other than the change in sound compared with the one-way fashion show in which videos are only watched in the VR environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**UX** & **Independent** & **One-Way** & **Interactive** & & \\
**Component** & **Variable** & **Average (S.D.)** & **Average (S.D.)** & **\(t\)-Value** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Interest} & POV & 3.63 (1.04) & 4.34 (0.74) & 6.09 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Cloth & 3.59 (0.91) & 4.42 (0.66) & 8.09 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Effect & 3.57 (0.91) & 4.18 (0.74) & 5.70 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Sound & 3.67 (0.92) & 3.82 (0.86) & 2.17 & \(<\)0.05 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Fun} & POV & 3.43 (1.06) & 4.43 (0.71) & 8.59 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Cloth & 3.40 (1.03) & 4.53 (0.59) & 10.43 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Effect & 3.44 (0.99) & 4.37 (0.67) & 8.52 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Sound & 3.41 (1.03) & 4.12 (0.74) & 6.13 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Immersion} & POV & 3.70 (0.98) & 4.32 (0.84) & 5.26 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Cloth & 3.68 (0.89) & 4.12 (0.87) & 3.87 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Effect & 3.58 (0.99) & 4.00 (0.86) & 3.51 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Sound & 3.78 (0.90) & 3.84 (0.89) & 0.52 & \(>\)0.05 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Usability} & POV & 3.50 (1.12) & 4.40 (0.84) & 7.04 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Cloth & 3.43 (1.03) & 4.31 (0.81) & 7.36 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Effect & 3.21 (1.08) & 3.86 (0.99) & 4.86 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Sound & 3.21 (1.04) & 3.73 (1.01) & 3.93 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: \(t\)-test results of the UX. Figure 12: Comparison of the radar charts from (**a**) one-way and (**b**) interactive experiences: an average value from the second survey is used for assessing the level of influence of interaction components on user experiences (including cybersickness).