## 4 Results  
For the sake of clarity in data visualization, for each subject, the reading time, the number of distraction events and the cumulative distraction time were averaged over the six excerpts separately for the two conditions (C1 and C2), thus producing an average reading time, an average number of distraction events and an average cumulative distraction time for each subject and for each condition (C1 and C2). As a result, Figure 8 on the left compares the graphs of the average reading time for each subject in condition C1 (non-interactive graphical character) and condition C2 (MICA), while Figure 8 on the right compares the graphs of the average cumulative distraction time under the same two conditions.  
The graphs show that substantial improvement was consistently obtained for both the overall reading time and cumulative distraction time for all subjects with the introduction of the MICA (i.e., in condition C2).  
To better understand this improvement, the percentage reduction in reading time \(RTR_{i}\) in condition C2 was also calculated relative to condition C1 for each subject according to Equation (1), where \(RT_{i}(C1)\) and \(RT_{i}(C2)\) represent the average reading time for the subject \(i\) under conditions C1 and C2, respectively:  
\[RTR_{i}=(RT_{i}(C1)-RT_{i}(C2))/RT_{i}(C1)*100,\forall i\in[1..20] \tag{1}\]Similarly, for each subject, the percentage reduction in distraction time \(DTR_{i}\) in condition C2 was calculated with respect to condition C1 according to Equation (2), where \(DT_{i}(C1)\) and \(DT_{i}(C2)\) represent the average cumulative distraction time for the subject \(i\) under conditions C1 and C2, respectively:  
\[DTR_{i}=(DT_{i}(C1)-DT_{i}(C2))/DT_{i}(C1)*100,\forall i\in[1..20] \tag{2}\]  
Figure 9 shows the graph of \(RTR_{i}\) (left) and the graph of \(DTR_{i}\) (right) for all subjects. The graph on the left clearly shows a significant improvement in the average reading time for all subjects, although with sensible individual variations. This improvement is largely explained by the graph on the right, which shows that the cumulative distraction time decreased by more than 60% and up to 80% for some subjects with the introduction of the MICA.  
To collect some subjective information on the user experience and the level of reliability of the experimentation, after the end of the two reading sessions, a very simple questionnaire was administered to the subjects. The questionnaire posed only one question, reported in Table 2.  
The answers obtained are reported in Table 3. Only 2 out of 20 subjects responded that the MICA left them indifferent, while no one declared that they had been distracted. In general, 90% of the subjects were satisfied and declared that the effect of the MICA was positive.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline While reading, the MICA made you more: & \(\square\) & Distracted & \(\square\) & Focused & \(\square\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Question asked to the users.  
Figure 8: Plots of the reading time (on the **left**) and the cumulative distraction time (on the **right**) for each subject, averaged over the six excerpts in conditions C1 and C2 (see text).  
Figure 9: Plots of the percentage reduction in reading time (on the **left**) and percentage reduction in cumulative distraction time (on the **right**) for each subject, averaged over the six excerpts (see text).