# Ergonomic Design of a Workplace Using Virtual Reality and a Motion Capture Suit
## 6 Results
### Statistical Evaluation for VRa, NonVR, and Classic  
Normality was not demonstrated by the Anderson-Darling test for evaluated data, therefore, a non-parametric test, the Wilcoxon paired test, was used for the evaluation. We test the null hypothesis in that there is no statistically significant difference in the measurements:  
1. Using Motion Capture with VR (VRa) and using Motion Capture without VR (NonVR). 2. Using Motion Capture with VR (VRa) and the classical method (Classic). We test at a significance level of \(\alpha\)= 5%, i.e., we reject the null hypothesis if the \(p\)-value of the test comes out lower than 5%. In the case of rejection, we can claim that there is a statistically significant difference between the measurement values using the two different methods. In (Table 3) and in (Figure 11), the resulting \(p\)-values of the Wilcoxon test can be seen along with the values of the range of variation and the median (range means a range of variation). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **VRa [min]** & **NonVR [min]** & **Classic [min]** \\ \hline Head rotation up to 15\({}^{\circ}\) & 21 & 15 & 10 \\ \hline Head flexion 25\({}^{\circ}\) & 14 & 17 & 15 \\ \hline Torso Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) & 12 & 12 & 8 \\ \hline Torso Flexion 40–60\({}^{\circ}\) & 11 & 10 & 7 \\ \hline Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) & 15 & 12 & 15 \\ \hline Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) & 4 & 5 & 13 \\ \hline Flexion 40–60\({}^{\circ}\) & 8 & 7 & 10 \\ \hline Flexion 40–60\({}^{\circ}\) & 14 & 5 & 6 & 8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Time spent in working position. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Range**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wilcoxon Test**} \\ \hline
**Variable** & **Vra** & **NonVR** & **Classic** & **Vra** & **NonVR** & **Classic** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **VRa x NonVR** \\ _p-Value_ \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **VRa x Classic** \\ _p-Value_ \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Head rotation up to 15\({}^{\circ}\) & 23.0 & 11.0 & 8.0 & 20.5 & 15.0 & 9.5 & 0.001 & 0.000 \\ \hline Head flexion 25\({}^{\circ}\) & 19.0 & 16.0 & 14.0 & 14.0 & 18.0 & 15.0 & 0.001 & 0.000 \\ \hline Torso Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) & 17.0 & 19.0 & 8.0 & 10.0 & 11.5 & 8.0 & 0.948 & 0.002 \\ \hline Torso Flexion 40–60\({}^{\circ}\) & 20.0 & 15.0 & 9.0 & 10.0 & 11.5 & 7.0 & 0.490 & 0.001 \\ \hline Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) & 23.0 & 14.0 & 12.0 & 14.0 & 13.0 & 14.0 & 0.005 & 0.756 \\ \hline Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) & 5.0 & 6.0 & 13.0 & 5.0 & 4.0 & 13.5 & 0.842 & 0.000 \\ \hline Flexion 40–60\({}^{\circ}\) & 14.0 & 8.0 & 7.0 & 7.0 & 7.5 & 10.0 & 0.224 & 0.055 \\ \hline Flexion 40–60\({}^{\circ}\) & 9.0 & 10.0 & 7.0 & 5.0 & 5.5 & 7.5 & 0.298 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Wilcoxon paired test. A statistically significant difference between Motion Capture measurements with and without VR was demonstrated for Head rotation up to 15\({}^{\circ}\), Head flexion 25\({}^{\circ}\), and Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) RUA. In the case of Head rotation up to 15\({}^{\circ}\) and Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) RUA, significantly more minutes spent in these positions were measured when using VR, whereas the measured time in Head flexion 25\({}^{\circ}\) was lower when using VR. For all other positions, the measured time with and without the use of VR was comparable. In the case of the comparison between Motion Capture measurements using VR and the classical method, a significant difference was, on the contrary, confirmed in almost all positions, except for Head Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) RUA and Head Flexion 40-60\({}^{\circ}\) RUA. In the case of the comparison between Motion Capture measurements using VR and the classical method, a significant difference was confirmed in almost all positions except Flexion over 60\({}^{\circ}\) RUA and Flexion 40-60\({}^{\circ}\) RUA.