## 5 Result and Analysis
### Nasa-Tlx  
Figure 7 shows the mean workload of the five sessions. From the perspective of overall user evaluations, data analysis showed significant differences between each interaction  
Figure 6: Average interaction time for each interaction method. Statistical significance is shown as *** for \(p<0.001\). method (\(F_{52.254}^{4}=0.002\), \(p=0.002\), \(\eta^{2}=0.183\)). Post-hoc analysis showed that the cognitive load of Gesture and Voice was significantly lower than that of several other interaction methods. There were no significant differences in cognitive load between the remaining several interaction methods. This means that the Gesture and Voice interaction designed in this study was significantly better than the other interaction methods in terms of cognitive load, which is because the Gesture and Voice method simplifies the complexity of the input operation and avoids excessive hand movements. Although the Bimanual Scaling interaction method proposed in this study had some advantages in terms of interaction efficiency, it did not have significant advantages in terms of cognitive load compared with the current methods. Figure 8 shows the mean score of each NASA-TLX dimension. From the perspective of the six dimensions of NASA-TLX, no significant differences were observed in scores between groups for mental demand (\(F_{52.402}^{4}=0.998\), \(p=0.417\), \(\eta^{2}=0.041\)) and frustration (\(F_{52.173}^{4}=2.185\), \(p=0.083\), \(\eta^{2}=0.067\)). However, significant differences were observed in physical demand (\(F_{52.051}^{4}=8.391\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.219\)), temporal demand (\(F_{52.006}^{4}=5.079\), \(p=0.002\), \(\eta^{2}=0.171\)), performance (\(F_{52.325}^{4}=2.641\), \(p=0.044\), \(\eta^{2}=0.117\)), and effort (\(F_{52.197}^{4}=3.889\), \(p=0.008\), \(\eta^{2}=0.199\)) across different interaction methods. This indicates that neither mental demand nor frustration significantly contributes to variances in users' subjective perceptions. Firstly, this suggests that the tasks in this experimental design posed a moderate level of difficulty without imposing an unreasonable cognitive load on participants. Secondly, it demonstrates that regardless of the interaction method used, the outcomes of task completion align closely with users' psychological expectations. Figure 7: Mean workload of the five sessions. In terms of physical demand, the Gesture and Voice group scored significantly better than the other groups (\(p<0.01\)), with no significant differences observed between the rest. This further demonstrates that interaction methods involving complex gestures can induce fatigue, lowering user ratings during data input tasks. Regarding temporal demand, Gesture and Voice was significantly faster than the Pinch-Slider (\(p=0.013\)) and Keyboard input methods (\(p=0.003\)), with no significant differences among the other groups. This suggests that Gesture and Voice is quicker both subjectively and objectively for users. The Bimanual Scaling method proposed in this study was slightly better in terms of users' subjective perception of time spent compared to existing solutions (compared to Pinch-Slider \(p=0.847\), Keyboard \(p=0.385\), and Touch-Slider \(p=0.223\)), though not significantly. This may have been due to the fluidity of the continuous scaling operations causing users to underestimate the actual time consumed. Conversely, keyboard input, despite being objectively faster than both sliding input methods, tended to be perceived as more time-consuming due to its discontinuity and the additional cognitive load of searching for characters on the keyboard. For performance, a significant difference was observed between the Gesture and Voice and Pinch-Slider methods proposed in this study, while differences among other groups were not significant. The Bimanual Scaling method, although slightly better than existing solutions (compared to Pinch-Slider \(p=0.249\), Keyboard \(p=0.981\), and Touch-Slider \(p=0.995\)), was still not significantly superior.