# Attentional Bias Modification Training in Virtual Reality: Evaluation of User Experience
## 4 Discussion  
The objective of this study was to explore the impact of VR research tools--both hardware and software--on the execution of an ABMT task. In summary, our findings suggest that while the participants found the ABMT software user-friendly, spending an extended period engaged in this task impacted participants' current state and influenced their evaluation of the procedure. The participants perceived the ABMT as a task with standard usability, categorizing it as being executed with good software [26]. Overall, the ABMT appeared to be easy to understand, learn, and operate. This was evident in the time taken during each series, as the participants required only one series to learn how to complete the ABMT more efficiently. The use of glasses or contact lenses did not influence the time spent on the task or the assessment of usability. The findings also suggest that negative states like fatigue, discomfort, or anxiety did not impact the time dedicated to the task. Moreover, the absence of differences in time between series 2 and 4 implies that the participants' focus remained undiverted from the primary task objective, since any distraction of the gaze stopped the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Within-Participant** \\ **Factor (Number of** \\ **Series)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Between-Participant** \\ **Factor (Visual** \\ **Problems)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Interaction** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Time} & F(2.349,131.557) = 3.71, & F(1,56) = 0.078, & F(2.349,131.557) = 1.303, \\  & \(p\) = 0.021, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.062 & \(p\) = 0.789, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.001 & \(p\) = 0.276, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.023 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Anxiety} & F(2.193,146.958) = 7.227, & F(1,67) = 1.734, & F(2.193,146.958) = 0.142, \\  & \(p\) = 0.001, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.097 & \(p\) = 0.192, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.025 & \(p\) = 0.885, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.002 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Fatigue} & F(2.345,157.084) = 58.639, & F(1,67) = 1.707, & F(2.345,157.084) = 1.305, \\  & \(p\) = 0.001, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.467 & \(p\) = 0.196, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.025 & \(p\) = 0.275, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.019 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Comfort} & F(2.642,176.995) = 14.832, & F(1,67) = 0.544, & F(2.642,176.995) = 0.228, \\  & \(p\) = 0.001, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.181 & \(p\) = 0.463, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.008 & \(p\) = 0.854, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro 2}\) = 0.003 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistical outcomes of the two-way mixed ANOVAs conducted between participants with and without visual problems, focusing on time and the three VAS measures. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Comfort**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Anxiety**} \\ \hline  & **Prs** & **S1** & **S2** & **S3** & **S4** & **Prs** & **S1** & **S2** & **S3** & **S4** \\ \hline Fatigue & \(-0.259\)\(\,\)* & \(-0.399\)\(\,\)** & \(-0.51\)\(\,\)** & \(-0.453\)\(\,\)** & \(-0.398\)\(\,\)** & \(0.277\)\(\,\)* & \(0.311\)\(\,\)** & \(0.37\)\(\,\)** & \(0.419\)\(\,\)** & \(0.417\)\(\,\)** \\ Comfort & \(\,\)** & \(\,\)** & \(\,\)** & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-0.157\)\(\,\) & \(-0.304\)\(\,\)* & \(-0.377\)\(\,\)** & \(-0.357\)\(\,\)** & \(-0.324\)\(\,\)** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  Note: PrS = Pre-session; S1 to S4 = series 1 to series 3; \(\,\)*\(\,counting of the time spent looking at the figure until the participant returned to direct his gaze to that figure. A robust level of sustained attention is essential for tasks focused on altering attentional biases. As anticipated, their anxiety and fatigue levels intensified across successive series, accompanied by a decline in comfort, albeit with nuanced patterns.