# Effects of Wearing a Swimming Cap and Goggles on Phoria and Fusional Vergence
## 3 Results
### Relationships between Changes in Phoria and Fusional Vergence  
The relationship between a cap and goggles was not evaluated based on the coefficient of determination (r\({}^{2}\)) because the dependency could not be defined, but was evaluated using [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient (r), which quantifies the interdependency between a cap and goggles. The effect of wearing a cap and wearing goggles on wearing both a cap and goggles was evaluated based on the coefficient of determination, which is the proportion of the variation in wearing a cap and goggles that is predictable from wearing a cap alone and goggles alone. From these analyses, we found that the correlation between wearing a cap and goggles was significant in phoria at distance, in the NFV for break and recovery at distance. The explanatory power of the effect on wearing both a cap and goggles was greater for wearing goggles (r\({}^{2}\) = 0.278-0.692) than for wearing a cap (r\({}^{2}\) = 0.158-0.482) in the evaluation by coefficient of determination. Relationships between wearing a swimming cap, goggles, and both a cap and goggles in terms of changes in phoria at distance and near are shown in Figure 1. [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient between cap and goggles was significant at distance (Figure 1a: r = 0.644, \(p\) < 0.001). The coefficients of determination for wearing both a cap and goggles were larger when wearing goggles than when wearing a cap at distance and near (Figure 1b: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.581, \(p\) < 0.001; Figure 1e: 0.692, \(p\) < 0.001). Relationships between wearing a swimming cap, goggles, and both a cap and goggles for changes in NFV at distance and near are shown in Figure 2. [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient between cap and goggles was not significant for the break and recovery points at distance (Figure 2a,d), but was significant for the break and recovery points at distance (Figure 2g: r = 0.672, \(p\) < 0.001; Figure 2j: 0.511, \(p\) = 0.002). The coefficients of determination for the break and recovery points of wearing both a cap and goggles were larger when wearing goggles than when wearing a cap at distance and near (Figure 2b: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.542, \(p\) < 0.001; Figure 2h: 0.468, \(p\) < 0.001; Figure 2k: 0.417, \(p\) < 0.001), except for the recovery point when wearing a cap at distance (Figure 2f: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.461, \(p\) < 0.001). Relationships between a swimming cap, goggles, and both a cap and goggles for changes in PFV at distance and near are shown in Figure 3. [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient between cap and goggles was significant for the break and recovery points at distance (Figure 3a,d: r = 0.636, \(p\) < 0.001; 0.591, \(p\) < 0.001), but not for the break and recovery points at distance (Figure 3g,j). The coefficients of determination for break and recovery points of wearing both a cap and goggles were larger when wearing goggles than when wearing a cap at distance and near (Figure 3b: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.498, \(p\) < 0.001; Figure 3h: 0.278, \(p\) = 0.004; Figure 3k: 0.378, \(p\) = 0.001), except for the recovery point when wearing a cap at distance (Figure 3f: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.482, \(p\) < 0.001). Table 6 shows the results of the correlation analysis performed to determine the relationship between phoria and the relative weight loaded. Phoria showed low positive correlations with wearing both a cap and goggles at distance and wearing goggles at near (r = 0.426, \(p\) = 0.011; 0.345, \(p\) = 0.042), and did not show a significant relationship with