## 3 Data Analysis
### Analysis of SART Score Differences  
The author conducted a paired-samples \(t\)-test on the SART scale scores measured by controllers in two different environments, remote tower (RETO) and conventional tower (COTO). The paired-samples \(t\)-test is effective in comparing the change in the mean of the same set of data under the two conditions of correlation and accurately examines the effect of environmental factors on the controllers' SART scale scores. D (summed demand) denotes the extent to which the scenario demands attentional resources, S (summed supply) refers to the supply of attentional resources, and U (summed understanding) denotes the extent to which the subject understands the scenario. After collecting and standardizing the data collected from the scale, the results of the normality test of the data showed that the \(p\) of the data in each group was greater than 0.05, obeying normal distribution and variance chi-square. Paired samples \(t\)-test can be used. Through the analysis, it was concluded that the controllers' degree of attentional demand D and the degree of situational comprehension U as well as the final situational awareness scores in the two experimental environments were significantly different (\(p<0.05\)), and the degree of attentional resource supply S was not different (\(p\geq 0.05\)). As shown in Table 2.  
The results of experiments indicate that as the control environment evolves, the attention demand placed on controllers in the remote tower is much greater than that in the conventional tower (t = 4.510, sig = 0.004). The attention demand level consists of three elements: situational instability, situational complexity, and situational variability. In the remote tower setting, controllers mostly interact with pilots via various electronic displays and communication devices, whereas conventional tower controllers depend on direct observation. The heightened concentration required in the remote tower, as opposed to the conventional tower, may arise from the distinct methods of information collecting, which may affect controllers' perception and comprehension of the situation. As a result, we identified significant disparities in attention demand levels. The availability of attention resources, including mental arousal, attention allocation, attention focus, and residual energy, exhibited no significant variation (t = 1.523, sig = 0.179). This may be due to the need for controllers to maintain a uniform degree of vigilance in both settings to guarantee operational safety. The volume of acquired information, the quality of that information, and the degree of familiarity with the context determine the comprehension of the situation. The disparities in the work environments of the Remote Tower and Conventional Tower, including visibility, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scale Indicators** & **Towers** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t** & **Sig** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{U} & RETO & 12.14 & 2.478 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.510} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.004} \\ \cline{2-5}  & COTO & 9.286 & 1.603 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{S} & RETO & 31.57 & 5.912 & \multirow{2}{*}{1.523} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.179} \\ \cline{2-5}  & COTO & 27.429 & 3.047 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{D} & RETO & 28 & 1.528 & \multirow{2}{*}{6.355} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.001} \\ \cline{2-5}  & COTO & 23 & 2.160 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SA} & RETO & 48.286 & 5.499 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.719} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.035} \\ \cline{2-5}  & COTO & 39.857 & 5.872 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of paired-sample \(t\)-test analysis of SA scales. acoustics, and interference, may influence the controllers' perception and comprehension. The extent of visual scanning might result in fluctuations in cognitive load, thereby affecting the SART scores. Moreover, the displays in the Remote Tower provide extensive environmental data, facilitating a more natural information retrieval process.