## 3 Results
### Mixed Measures ANOVA Analyses
#### 3.4.1 Task Time  
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess the influence of interaction modes (eye tracking, headset, and controller) on task time for TMT-VR parts A and B. Results revealed a significant main effect of interaction modes, F(2, 207) = 10.63, \(p\)! 0.001, \(\eta^{2}p\) = 0.09 for Task Time A, and F(2, 207) = 5.63, \(p\) = 0.004, \(\eta^{2}p\) = 0.05 for Task Time B. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences in Task Time A between the eye and controller interaction modes (\(p\) = 0.002) and between the head and the controller (\(p\)! 0.001; see Figure 3). Regarding Task Time B, Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed similar data to Task Time A, with main effects presented between the eye and controller interaction modes (\(p\) = 0.002) and between the head and the controller (\(p\)! 0.001; see Figure 4). Notably, the headset mode exhibited superior performance in task completion time compared to the controller mode. However, there was no statistically significant difference in task completion time between the headset and eye tracking modes. Therefore, the first hypothesis is confirmed. These findings suggest that participants' performance in task completion time was not significantly influenced by their gaming skill level. Similarly, a repeated measures ANOVA analysis revealed that there were no significant interactions between gaming skill and interaction mode (eye, headset, and controller) both for Task Time A, that is F(2, 207) = 0.668, \(p\) = 0.514, \(\eta^{2}p\) = 0.001, and for Task Time B, that is, F(2, 207) = 0.143, \(p\) = 0.866, \(\eta^{2}p\) = 0.001. Therefore, the second and third hypotheses are rejected. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Task** & **Metric** & **Gaming Level** & **Interaction Mode** & **Mean (SD)** & **Range (Min–Max)** \\ \hline A & Accuracy & High & Eye & 15.6 (0.249) & 15.2–16.2 \\  & & Hand & 15.7 (0.180) & 15.3–16.0 \\  & & Head & 15.6 (0.190) & 15.2–16.0 \\  & & Low & Eye & 15.5 (0.233) & 15.0–15.9 \\  & & Hand & 15.8 (0.256) & 15.3–16.3 \\  & & Head & 15.6 (0.215) & 15.1–15.9 \\ Accuracy & Overall & Eye & 15.5 (0.255) & 15.0–16.2 \\  & & Hand & 15.7 (0.222) & 15.3–16.3 \\  & & Head & 15.6 (0.202) & 15.1–16.0 \\ Accuracy & High & Overall & 15.6 (0.214) & 15.2–16.2 \\  & Low & Overall & 15.6 (0.265) & 15.0–16.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Accuracy and task time by gaming level and interaction mode. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **UX** & **Usability** & **Acceptability** \\ \hline Age & 0.031 * & \(-\)0.148 *** & \(-\)0.026 *** \\ Education & 0.081 & \(-\)0.003 *** & \(-\)0.012 *** \\ GSQ & 0.193 & 0.226 & \(-\)0.014 *** \\ PC & 0.230 & 0.253 & 0.040 * \\ SMART & 0.187 & 0.292 & 0.135 \\ \hline \hline \(p\)! 0.05 *, \(p\)! 0.001 ***; GSQ = Gaming Skills Questionnaire; PC = personal computer use; SMART = smartphone application use. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Correlation analysis of demographic variables, performance metrics, and user feedback scores in the TMT-VR study. Figure 3: Task completion time of TMT-VR Task A per interaction mode and gaming skill. Task completion time is displayed as a Z score. \(p\) < 0.01 **, \(p\) < 0.001 ***. **