# Camera-Sourced Heart Rate Synchronicity: A Measure of Immersion in Audiovisual Experiences
## 4 Results
### Analyses of Survey  
In this section, the term _immersion score_ is used to describe the sum of the 24-item Film IEQ [22] and single-item immersion assessment methods [25]. The range of possible immersion scores is \(-300\) to 2200. Upon inspection of the distribution of the immersion scores, there appeared to be an extreme outlier who recorded a significantly lower immersion score than all other participants in the study. As this self-report score represented a highly idiosyncratic opinion, it was considered not conducive to evaluating the between-group effects of audio presentation and was therefore removed from the statistical tests described in this section. However, their response can be seen in Figure 3. Notably, this was the same participant who made a negative comment about the media.  
Prior to viewing the film clip, participants were asked to assess their familiarity with and initial impression of the content--how excited they were to watch the clip based on their taste in films, if they had seen it before, and how they were feeling at the time. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the immersion scores were normally distributed, but both the familiarity and initial impression scores were not. Hence, two Spearman correlation tests were applied to determine the relationship between responses to the familiarity and initial impression questions, using the _immersion score_. Note that the immersion score is calculated by adding the score for the Film IEQ to the single immersion item. Neither familiarity nor initial impression showed a statistically significant correlation with the overall immersion score; familiarity (SCC = \(-0.118\), \(p\) = 0.527) and initial impression (SCC = \(0.044\), \(p\) = 0.815). Hence, the subsequent analyses do not apply responses to these questions as covariates.  
For both groups, immersion scores were normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The mean immersion score was higher in the high-end audio group (1411.625) compared with the basic audio group (1404.800). There was a homogeneity of variances, as assessed by [PERSON]'s test for equality of variances (\(p\) = 0.617). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean immersion score between high-end audio and basic audio groups, \(t(30)\) = 0.086 and \(p\) = 0.868. Hence, this analysis suggests there was no difference in the extent to which participants felt immersed betw  
Figure 3: Box–Swarm plot showing the distribution of immersion scores for each group. The limits of the plot represent the highest and lowest possible scores associated with the immersion questionnaire, \(-300\) and \(2200\).  
Figure 4 shows the participant's responses to the question, regarding how the camera, lighting, and ECG sensor, influenced their audiovisual experience. These results show that these factors had a variable impact on the participant's viewing experience. To assess if there was a significant difference in the average response value for the questions associated with the negative impact of the ECG sensor, camera, and lighting, pairwise comparisons were made. As the Shapiro-Wilk test assessed that the responses were not all normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was applied. These tests revealed no significant difference in median response between the questions associated with the negative impact of the ECG sensor and camera (U(31) = 384.5, \(p\) = 0.178). However, when comparing these distributions with the responses to the question associated with the negative impact of the room illumination, in both cases, a significant difference was found (camera: U(31) = 169.5, \(p\) < 0.001; ECG: U(31) = 204.0, \(p\) < 0.001).