## 3 Results
### Analysis on Direct Questionnaires on Perceived Distinguishability of Samples per Semantic Pair  
A repeated-measures ANOVA determined that perceived distinguishability of \"Hard-Soft\" varied significantly across the evaluation methods [F (2, 46) = 3.345, \(p\) < 0.05]. The post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction revealed that the perceived distinguishability score fell by an average of 0.67 between the AE 1 and RE (\(p\) = 0.044). Moreover, the assumption of Mauchly's sphericity was met in all repeated-measures ANOVAs (\(p\) > 0.05). Table 5 shows all repeated-measures ANOVA results.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Evaluation Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dark–Bright**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Matt–Glossy**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cooling–Warming**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dry–Moist**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Slippery–Sticky**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Flat–Rugged**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Hard–Soft**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AE 1} & Correlation & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.513\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.018\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.002\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.294\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.106\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.405\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.151\)} \\  & coefficient & & & & & & & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 & 0.849 & 0.980 & 0.000 & 0.251 & 0.000 & 0.072 \\  & N & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AE 2} & Correlation & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.381\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.000\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.114\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.174\)\({}^{*}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.095\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.381\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.174\)\({}^{*}\)} \\  & coefficient & & & & & & & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 & 1.000 & 0.214 & 0.037 & 0.303 & 0.000 & 0.037 \\  & N & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{RE} & Correlation & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.614\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.058\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.111\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.282\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.317\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.343\)\({}^{**}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.180\)\({}^{*}\)} \\  & coefficient & & & & & & & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 & 0.526 & 0.229 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.031 \\  & N & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 & 144 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{*}p\) \(<0.05\), \({}^{**}p\) \(<0.01\).} & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Correlation coefficients for each SD method by semantic pair.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Evaluation Type**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Semantic Pair**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AE 1} & \multirow{4}{*}{Mean} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Dark–Bright} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\)-value} & \multirow{4}{*}{Mean} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Matt–Glossy} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\)-value} \\  & & SD & F & & & SD & F & \(p\)-value \\  & 3.88 & 1.90 & & & 4.00 & 1.55 & & \\  & AE 2 & 3.67 & 1.76 & 2.08 & 0.14 & 3.71 & 1.77 & 1.15 & 0.32 \\  & RE & 4.29 & 1.78 & & & 4.17 & 1.46 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AE 1} & \multirow{4}{*}{Mean} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cooling–Warming} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\)-value} & \multirow{4}{*}{Mean} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Dry–Moist} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\)-value} \\  & & SD & F & & & & SD & F & \(p\)-value \\  & AE 1 & 2.92 & 1.47 & & 3.63 & 1.50 & & \\  & AE 2 & 3.33 & 1.49 & 1.27 & 0.29 & 3.50 & 1.47 & 0.27 & 0.76 \\  & RE & 3.42 & 1.50 & & & 3.71 & 1.68 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Results of repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustment.