## 4 Results
### Discussion  
When examining the survey data from Figure 4, we observe that the VR headset performed strongly amongst participants for controller responsiveness, intuition, and seeing and interpreting virtual objects, and performed weakly for overall visual comfort. We also observe that the AR headset performed strongly for seeing and interpreting real objects and visual comfort; however, participants found it to be less intuitive, less enjoyable, and less comfortable to use. For the Likert responses related to hypothesis H3, we observe that participants generally found the VR controls easier to learn and more responsive than the AR controls. We believe a likely explanation for this is due to the use of VR controllers. Given that the position and orientation of the controllers are known and each \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\mathbf{H_{a}}\) & \(\rho\) \\ \hline \hline II—Easy to Learn & VR \(>\) AR & **0.006** \\ \hline I2—Comfortable to Use & VR \(>\) AR & 0.262 \\ \hline I3—Perceived Efficiency & VR \(>\) AR & **0.005** \\ \hline I4—Responsive to Input & VR \(>\) AR & **0.001** \\ \hline I5—Prone to Errors * & VR \(<\) AR & **0.021** \\ \hline V1—Seeing Real Objects & AR \(>\) VR & **0.006** \\ \hline V2—Seeing Virtual Objects & AR \(>\) VR & 0.163 \\ \hline V3—Visual Comfort & AR \(>\) VR & **0.017** \\ \hline P1—Perceived Enjoyability & VR \(>\) AR & 0.662 \\ \hline P2—Mental Load * & VR \(<\) AR & 0.180 \\ \hline P3—User Comfort & VR \(>\) AR & 0.072 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: One-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test results. Variables I1–I5 test H3, variables V1–V3 test H4, and variables P1–P3 test H5. Significant results are indicated in **bold**. * denotes reverse scale. Figure 4: Summary of the raw data obtained from the surveys filled out by 12 participants, comparing the AR and VR headsets, for each one of the 11 survey questions shown in Table 1.  
button/trigger has well-defined functions, it is expected that the VR controllers would provide a more accurate and user-friendly interface, a conclusion which has been affirmed in several related studies [17; 18; 19]. This is further evidenced by the fact that only two participants felt that they experienced mapping issues whilst using the VR headset, with a participant (P8) noting that _\"the [VR] controllers were much more responsive, making it easier to pick and perform the correct interaction\"_. On the other hand, we observed that more users found the AR input interface to be unintuitive and difficult to use, with many participants experiencing hand-tracking issues and incorrect inputs. It was noted (P6) that the _\"[AR] hand tracking [was] very inconsistent and [could] be frustrating\"_. These observed results are understandable when considering the use of real-time hand-tracking technology to track users' hand gesture inputs. Past studies have shown that interfacing with application controls using hand gestures has generally resulted in lower input accuracy and precision when compared to the use of motion controllers for the same task [2; 19]. Our observed results are further influenced by the fact that many users had little to no experience working with AR devices prior to the study, and as such had difficulty learning the hand gesture controls and applying them to the task. This was a common point noted by many participants, with one (P10) stating that the _\"[the] AR [controls were] very difficult to get used to\"_. This suggests that the current hand-tracking system of the HoloLens 2 will be a barrier to entry for users and that improved and fine-tuned real-time hand-tracking is necessary for future improvements in the usability of AR hand gesture controls for interactive tasks similar to this semantic mapping application. Though we cannot affirm H4, participants did find that the AR headset significantly improved their ability to see real-world objects when compared to the VR headset, where a participant (P9) found it _\"much easier to see what [they were] doing in AR\"_.