## 4 Results
### Subjective Results
#### 4.1.2 Task-Related Factors  
Mental demand (MD) scores presented a statistically significant difference (F (3, 48) = 4.11, \(p\) = 0.011, \(\eta\) = 0.20), where post hoc analysis showed a significant reduction in mental demand from Scenario II to Scenario IV (T = 3.07, \(p\) = 0.021). The latter are both sequential interactions where participants switched from the leader (Scenario II) to the follower (Scenario IV) role condition.  
In the case of physical demand (PD), this objective factor exhibited a significant difference as well (F (3, 48) = 7.46, \(p\) < 0.000, \(\eta\) = 0.32). In a similar fashion as the overall workload, a significant reduction in the scores was obtained for Scenario II with Scenarios III (T = 3.68, \(p\) = 0.004) and IV (T = 4.11, \(p\) = 0.001) after [PERSON]. Moreover, physical demand  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **MD** & **PD** & **TD** & **EF** & **PE** & **FR** & **OW** \\ \hline Physical Demand & **0.76** & & & & & & \\ Temporal Demand & **0.51** & 0.41 & & & & & \\ Effort & **0.70** & **0.65** & 0.48 & & & & \\ Performance & **0.50** & 0.37 & 0.27 & 0.32 & & & \\ Frustration & **0.61** & **0.54** & 0.23 & 0.39 & **0.60** & & \\ Overall Workload & **0.82** & **0.71** & **0.73** & **0.72** & **0.62** & **0.62** & \\ Average Heart Rate & 0.26 & 0.36 & 0.13 & 0.31 & 0.40 & 0.34 & 0.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Spearman correlation between variables. Strong correlations (r \(\geq\) 0.50) are in bold font.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Factor**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario I**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario II**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario III**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario IV**} \\  & **X** & **SD** & **X** & **SD** & **X** & **SD** & **X** & **SD** \\ \hline Mental Demand & 19.71 & 13.75 & 16.47 & 11.83 & 27.06 & 19.85 & 29.71 & 23.08 \\ Physical Demand & 18.53 & 16.28 & 12.65 & 9.86 & 27.65 & 24.25 & 29.41 & 24.68 \\ Temporal Demand & 31.18 & 17.55 & 27.94 & 21.73 & 36.76 & 20.23 & 36.76 & 31.42 \\ Effort & 25.59 & 17.22 & 25.00 & 18.96 & 31.47 & 22.48 & 37.35 & 27.56 \\ Performance & 18.24 & 22.98 & 10.00 & 8.29 & 12.65 & 12.88 & 9.41 & 8.27 \\ Frustration & 17.65 & 20.09 & 15.88 & 17.07 & 22.65 & 24.57 & 25.88 & 24.32 \\ Overall Workload & 24.24 & 14.36 & 19.06 & 12.03 & 27.29 & 17.98 & 28.82 & 19.39 \\ Spare Mental Capacity & 2.71 & 0.77 & 2.59 & 0.51 & 3.65 & 1.27 & 3.47 & 1.23 \\ Average Heart Rate & 76.88 & 10.53 & 77.71 & 10.18 & 78.12 & 8.87 & 77.59 & 9.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Mean (X) and standard deviation (SD) for cognitive workload results across scenarios.  
was marginally higher in Scenario IV in comparison to Scenario I (T = 2.67, \(p\) = 0.062). For the temporal demand (TD) factor, no significant variation was found across conditions.  
As a variable of special interest in this study, it is worth noting that mental demand is statistically significant with the remaining five factors of workload, according to [PERSON]'s analysis. For instance, strong positive correlations were established with physical (r = 0.76, \(p\) < 0.000) and temporal (r = 0.51, \(p\) < 0.000) demands. A large association was indeed achieved with temporal demand despite not having significant variations within treatments.