## 4 Results
### The Evaluation of the Gesture Types in the XR Environment

Table 4: Statistical significance results between gesture types in XR environment (Friedman Test/Repeated Measure ANOVA and post-hoc using pairwise \(t\)-test with Bonferroni correction). Figure 8: A graph of the UEQ-S results by the three gesture types in the XR environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Gesture Type** & **Quality Scale** & **Mean** & **Std. Dev.** & **Grade** & **Cronbach’s \(\alpha\)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Surface-Touch Gesture} & \multirow{2}{*}{Pragmatic 0.77} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.13} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.12} & Good (Top 10–25\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.9} \\  & & & & & Below Average (Bottom 50\% or more) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.9} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Overall Satisfaction} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.17} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.95} & Above Average (Top 25–50\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{-} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Mid-Air Gesture} & \multirow{2}{*}{Pragmatic 0.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.36} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.11} & Above Average (Top 25–50\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.9} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Hedonic Gesture} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.08} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.95} & Above Average (Top 25–50\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.93} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Overall Satisfaction} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.22} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.91} & Above Average (Top 25–50\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{-} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Micro Finger-Touch Gesture} & \multirow{2}{*}{Pragmatic 0.93} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.10} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.32} & Below Average (Bottom 50\% or more) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.93} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Hedonic Gesture} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.29} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.01} & Good (Top 10–25\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.9} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Overall Satisfaction} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.20} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.05} & Above Average (Top 25–50\%) & \multirow{2}{*}{-} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Statistics of the UEQ-S results for the three gesture types in the XR environment. Given the lack of significance for pragmatic quality and overall satisfaction, post hoc comparisons were performed only for hedonic quality, using pairwise \(t\)-tests with Bonferroni correction. The results showed a significant difference between the micro finger and Surface-Touch gestures (Mean_diff (Micro Finger, Surface) = 0.52, t = 2.62, corrected \(p\) = 0.0138). The analysis revealed no clear statistical differences among the three gesture types in the XR environment. However, it is noteworthy that, in line with the findings in the TV environment, the Surface-Touch gesture was perceived as relatively less engaging, while the Micro Finger gesture was considered the most enjoyable. Interestingly, although no statistical difference was confirmed, the Mid-Air gesture--which received the most negative evaluations in the TV environment--showed the highest mean score in overall satisfaction in the XR environment. Conversely, the Surface-Touch gesture, which had received the most favorable evaluations in the TV environment, recorded the lowest average score in the XR environment. These findings may suggest that the nature of the XR environment--allowing gesture execution without the need for physical devices--may have increased the perceived utility of Mid-Air gestures compared to Surface-Touch gestures, potentially enhancing users' sense of immersion and freedom.