# Method for Viewing Real-World Scenes while Recording Video
## 5 Results  
The results of the case study were analyzed from two perspectives: emotional responses and error rates (Figures 10-12). Figure 10: SAM result during object tracking: (**a**) valence score, (**b**) arousal score, (**c**) dominance score. Figure 9: Case study procedure. Figure 11: SAM result during object detection: (**a**) valence score, (**b**) arousal score, (**c**) dominance score. Figure 12: Error rate results during object detection: (**a**) object tracking error rates, (**b**) object detection error rates. **Emotional responses**: We measured the emotional responses when conducting two different experiments (object tracking and object detection) and compared them under two conditions (using a regular camera app and using the new camera app). As described in Figure 7, each emotional dimension consists of a nine-point scale [27]. On the valence scale, the closer the participant response was to 1, the more pleasant the participant felt. In addition, the closer the participant response was to 9 on the scale, the more unpleasant the participant felt. On the arousal score scale, the closer the participant response is to 1, the more excitement the participant expressed. By contrast, the closer the participant response is to 9 on the scale, the more calm the participant felt. By contrast, on the dominance score scale, the points are reversed. The closer the participant response is to 1, the more dependency the participant expressed. In addition, the closer the participant's response is to 9, the more independent the participant felt. We statistically analyzed the SAM results. First, for the object tracking valence score, the mean score when using the new camera application was 1.5, as compared to a mean score of 8.0 for the regular camera application (F = 304.20; \(p<0.01\)). The object tracking arousal scores were 2.4 when using the new camera application, as compared with a mean score of 7.4 when using a regular camera application (F = 52.57; \(p<0.01\)). For the dominance score, the mean when using a new camera application was 8.5, compared to a mean of 1.9 when using a regular camera application (F = 292.57; \(p<0.01\)). The object tracking results indicate that the participants felt a sense of pleasance, excitement, and independence when using the new camera application. During the object detection experiment, for the arousal dimension, the mean score when using the new camera application was 2.1, as compared to a mean score of 8.5 when using a regular camera application (F = 157.54; \(p<0.01\)). For the arousal dimension, the mean score when using the new camera application was 2.6, as compared to a mean score of 8.4 when using a regular camera application (F = 82.27; \(p<0.01\)). For the dominance dimension, the mean score when using the new camera application was 2.6, compared to a mean score of 8.4 when using a regular camera application (F = 82.27; \(p<0.01\)). **Error rates:** For object tracking, the total duration of the child's movement was 10 s. We measured the time up to which the participants missed the target object during video recording. In addition, for object detection, four firework images appeared, and we measured the number of missed target objects during the video recording. The results indicate that the mean amount of time the target object was missed when using a regular camera application was 6.6, compared to a mean time of 0 when using the new camera application (F = 272.25; \(p<0.01\)). It turns out that it is extremely difficult to track the movement of the target object. Obviously, the new camera application automatically tracks the target object, and hence the missed time is 0. It can be assumed that the result is associated with the SAM result. The participants did not feel pleasure, excitement, or independence when using a regular camera application because they could not track the target object well.