## 3 Results  
To investigate possible differences between the two Subject Groups in the Aesthetic (Figure 1) and Loudness (Figure 2) dimensions, for each of the adjective couples, two repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted separately for the Ventilation and Air Conditioning Functional Modalities. The ANOVAs treated Engine Type and Air Flow Rate as within-subjects factors and the Subject Group as a between-subjects factor. Considering the adjectives of the _Aesthetic_ dimension, the analyses of the _High Quality-Low Quality_ (Table 2) adjective couple in both the Functional Modalities (Ventilation and Air Conditioning) showed the significance of the main effects of the Air Flow Rate, Engine Type, and Subject Group, and of the interactions between Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Subject Group, Engine Type \(\times\) Subject Group, and Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Engine Type. Air Flow Rate and Engine Type main effects and the interaction between Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Subject Group and Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Engine Type were also significant for the _Not Annoying-Annoying_ (Table 3) and _Unpleasant-Pleasant_ (Table 4) adjective couples in both Functional Modalities. In contrast, the interaction between Engine Type x Subject Group was significant only in the Air Conditioning Functional Modality for the _Unpleasant-Pleasant_ adjective couples. Figure 2: Marginal mean and 95% confidence interval of the _Loudness_ dimension items in the Ventilation (**left**) and Air Conditioning (**right**) Functional Modality, for different AFR, Engine Type, and Subject Group. The ANOVAs on the adjectives of the _Loudness_ dimension revealed the significance of the main effects of the Air Flow Rate and Engine, and of the interactions between Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Subject Group and Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Engine Type of the _Loud-Soft_ (Table 5) and _Noisy-Quiet_ (Table 6) in both the Functional Modalities. Interaction between Engine Type \(\times\) Subject Group was significant only in the Air Conditioning Functional Modality for _Noisy-Quiet_. Air Flow Rate and Engine Type were significant main effects for the _Powerful-Weak_ (Table 7) adjective couple, in addition to the interaction Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Engine Type. The interactions Air Flow Rate \(\times\) Engine Type \(\times\) Subject Group were significant only for the Ventilation Functional Modality. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Noisy-Quiet**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Ventilation**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Air Conditioning**} \\ \hline
**Within Subj. Effects** & **SS** & **df** & **MS** & **F** & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{p}\) & **SS** & **df** & **MS** & **F** & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{p}\) \\ \hline AFR & 503.69 & 3 & 167.90 & 322.81 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.895 & 400.65 & 3 & 133.55 & 195.37 & \(<\) 0.001 & 0.837 \\ AFR \(\times\) Subj. Group & 19.53 & 3 & 6.51 & 12.52 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.248 & 23.86 & 3 & 7.96 & 11.64 & \(<\) 0.001 & 0.234 \\ Residual & 59.29 & 114 & 0.52 & & & & 77.93 & 114 & 0.68 & & & \\ Eng. Type & 61.54 & 1 & 61.54 & 143.38 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.790 & 54.45 & 1 & 54.45 & 77.51 & \(<\) 0.001 & 0.671 \\ Eng. Type \(\times\) Subj. & 3.13 & 1 & 3.13 & 7.30 & 0.010 & 0.161 & 2.69 & 1 & 2.69 & 3.83 & 0.058 & 0.092 \\ Group & 16.31 & 38 & 0.43 & & & & 26.69 & 38 & 0.70 & & & \\ AFR \(\times\) Eng. Type & 27.60 & 3 & 9.20 & 26.14 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.408 & 21.66 & 3 & 7.22 & 19.24 & \(<\) 0.001 & 0.336 \\ AFR \(\times\) Eng. Type \(\times\) & 2.01 & 3 & 0.67 & 1.90 & 0.134 & 0.048 & 2.06 & 3 & 0.69 & 1.83 & 0.145 & 0.046 \\ Subj. Group & 40.13 & 114 & 0.35 & & & & 42.78 & 114 & 0.37 & & & \\ Between Subj. Effects & SS & df & MS & F & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{p}\) & SS & df & MS & F & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{p}\) \\ \hline Subj. Group & 1.29 & 1 & 1.29 & 0.84 & 0.365 & 0.022 & 6.05 & 1 & 6.05 & 2.91 & 0.096 & 0.071 \\ Residual & 58.40 & 38 & 1.54 & & & & 79.03 & 38 & 2.08 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: ANOVA results for _Noisy-Quiet_.