## 4 Results
### Presence Questionnaire  
In order to measure the degree to which the participants experienced presence in a virtual environment, the presence questionnaire was used (Table 3). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that the median PQ ranks of the VR-SET in the total score, Mdn = 117.00, were significantly different from the median PQ ranks of the VR-ET, Mdn = 107.00, \(Z=-3.114\), \(p\) = 0.002. Furthermore, significant differences were found in the following subscales of the PQ: realism (\(p\) = 0.008), possibility to act (\(p\) = 0.001), self-evaluation of performance (\(p\) = 0.046) and haptic perception (\(p\) < 0.001). Figure 5: Results of the adjusted ratings of the subscales and the weighted rating of the NASA-TLX. The white columns represent the strength endurance training, and the gray ones represent the endurance training. Significance: * \(p\) < 0.05, ** \(p\) < 0.01, *** \(p\) < 0.001. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess the linear relationship between the immersive tendencies (total score of ITQ) and presence (total score of PQ for the SET and ET). There was a significant negative correlation between the variables ITQ and PQ for the SET (\(\text{r}(20)=-0.45\), \(p=0.037\)) and a weak negative correlation between the variables ITQ and PQ for the ET (\(\text{r}(20)=-0.16\), \(p=0.479\)). The findings of [PERSON] and [PERSON] regarding high ITQ scores resulting in a greater presence (positive correlation) could not be replicated with our exergames. Furthermore, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the linear relationship between the usability (TUI scale \"Usability\" for the SET and ET) and presence (total score of PQ for the SET and ET). There was a significant positive correlation between the variables Usability for the SET and PQ for the SET (\(\text{r}(20)=0.48\), \(p=0.023\)) and also between the Usability for the ET and PQ for the ET (\(\text{r}(20)=-0.56\), \(p=0.008\)). However, no significant correlation was found for either type of training when combined with the TUI scale \"Intention to Use\" and presence. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**ITQ** & **Sample** & **Mean (SD)** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Cohen’s d** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Focus} & Pre VR & 25.55 (3.97) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.395} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.185} \\  & Reference 1  & 24.81 (7.54) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.941} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.016} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Emotions} & Pre VR & 15.41 (4.96) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.077} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.396} \\  & Reference 1  & 15.33 (8.67) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.072} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.396} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Game} & Pre VR & 12.77 (3.73) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.642} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.902} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.027} \\  & Reference 1  & 14.25 (6.70) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.077} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.38} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Game} & Pre VR & 6.64 (2.87) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.942} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.027} \\  & Reference 1  & 6.56 (4.95) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.902} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.027} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Total Score} & Pre VR & 65.59 (10.75) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.525} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.138} \\  & Reference 1  & 64.11 (13.11) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.525} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.138} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the immersive tendencies questionnaire (ITQ) and a reference sample from the Université du Quebec en Outaouais (UQO) Cyberpsychology Lab.