# AR-Assisted Guidance for Assembly and Maintenance of Avionics Equipment
## 4 Results  
We used completion times for training, assembly, and maintenance tasks, as well as the SUS, SMEQ, NASA-TLX, and user interviews to analyze differences between TG and ARG.  
Figure 11(a) illustrates the completion time results for Task 1 among the participants in the TG and ARG groups. Figure 11(b) details the completion time results for Task 2 and its Subtasks, 2-1 and 2-2, among participants in the TG and ARG groups. Figure 11(c) shows the completion time results for Task 3 among participants in the two groups. Furthermore, we calculated the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of each task completion time to show the difference between TG and ARG groups (see Table 1). For all three tasks, the ARG tasks took significantly less time than the TG tasks. To analyze the data specifically, firstly, the Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the completion time for all three tasks follows a normal distribution (TG group (\(\mathrm{P_{SW1}}\) = 0.896, \(\mathrm{P_{SW2-1}}\) = 0.467, \(\mathrm{P_{SW2-2}}\) = 0.253, \(\mathrm{P_{SW2}}\) = 0.443, \(\mathrm{P_{SW3}}\) = 0.897), ARG group (\(\mathrm{P_{SW1}}\) = 0.543, \(\mathrm{P_{SW2-1}}\) = 0.933, \(\mathrm{P_{SW2-2}}\) = 0.697, \(\mathrm{P_{SW2}}\) = 0.670, \(\mathrm{P_{SW3}}\) = 0.823)). Then, when we used a one-way ANOVA, the three tasks were found to have significant differences in completion time between the TG and ARG groups (\(\mathrm{F_{1}}\) = 98.86, \(\mathrm{P_{1}}\) < 0.01, \(\mathrm{F_{2-1}}\) = 20.95, \(\mathrm{P_{2-1}}\) < 0.01, \(\mathrm{F_{2-2}}\) = 4.45, \(\mathrm{P_{2-2}}\) < 0.01, \(\mathrm{F_{2}}\) = 16.38, \(\mathrm{P_{2}}\) < 0.01, \(\mathrm{F_{3}}\) = 8.27, \(\mathrm{P_{3}}\) < 0.01).  
As shown in Figure 11(d)-h, for the subjective data, we calculated the SUS questionnaire scores for the TG and ARG groups and analyzed them in two dimensions: SUS learnability (see Figure 11(d)) and SUS usability (see Figure 11(e)). Figure 11(f) presents the SUS total scores for the TG and ARG groups. Figure 11(g) illustrates the SMEQ results for both the TG and ARG groups. Additionally, Figure 11(h) displays the NASA-TLX results for the two groups. Furthermore, we used the Friedman test for the significance analysis of the SUS,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Task 1** & **Subtask 2-1** & **Subtask 2-2** & **Task 2** & **Task 3** \\ \hline TG & 140.47 (30.70) & 621.53 (129.49) & 352.20 (84.08) & 973.73 (195.85) & 508.13 (139.47) \\ ARG & 61.40 (2.41) & 449.80 (65.98) & 301.93 (38.08) & 751.73 (82.26) & 399.27 (45.16) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Means (standard deviations) of the completion times for the tasks.  
SMEQ, and NASA-TLX results. The results show that all the subjective data are statistically significantly different.  
Figure 12: The statistical results of the experiments, with dots representing individual participant results (participants from the TG group in blue and those from the ARG group in orange) and black crosses indicating the means: (**a**) completion time for Task 1; (**b**) completion time for Task 2; (**c**) completion time for Task 3; (**d**) SUS learnability; (**e**) SUS usability; (**f**) SUS total; (**g**) SMEQ; (**h**) NASA-TLX.