Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
behaviors”
. Since, agency is achieved when the actions of the user are causing the
intended effect on the mediated world; we added items to check if the user's intention
and the hints from the environment match.
“I knew what actions I should take to do to
go out”, “I knew what I should do because the environment gave me a hint”,
and
“The physical objects were obvious hint for interaction”.
Satisfaction.
We also measured how much the participants appreciated the
experience. They were asked to rate the experience on several scales:
“The experience
was: terrible, okay, good, great, best thing of entertainment experiences, best thing in
my life”, “I have really enjoyed myself during this experience”.
And to choose on a 5-
points Likert scale between:
“Very dissatisfied” -“Very satisfied” and “Terrible” -
”Delighted”.
We also observed the users' behavior via video records from the surveillance system.
The actions of the users recognized by the sensing mechanisms (pressure sensors, IR
and tilt sensors) were recorded in a text file.
4
Results
Figure 3 illustrates the means of the factors generated by the ITC-SOPI questionnaire,
the agency and satisfaction questionnaires. Differences between the means for the
three conditions for presence, engagement, naturalness, negative effect and
satisfaction were examined for significance using a one-way ANOVA for
independent groups design. The results showed no significant differences between the
three conditions for presence, engagement, naturalness, negative effect and
satisfaction.
A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect on
agency for IE, NIE and NIMS conditions. There was a significant effect on agency for
the three conditions [F(2, 38) = 8.209, p = 0.001]. Post hoc comparisons using the
Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the IE condition (M = 3.56, SD =
0.54) was significantly different than the NIE condition (M = 3.02, SD = 0.54) and
the NIMS condition (M = 2.71, SD = 0.49). The NIE condition did not significantly
differ from NIMS condition.
Taking the data from the sensing mechanisms, we counted the number of actions
(eat, drink, trigger feedback) that were triggered by the users. We compared the
number of actions by the participants in each setting for the IE, NIE and NIMS
conditions with one-way ANOVA. There was a significant difference for the three
conditions [F(2, 25) = 6.237, p = 0.006]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD
test showed that the mean score for the IE condition (M = 5.08, SD = 2.46) was
significantly different than the NIE condition (M = 9.06, SD = 4.14). The NIE
condition is significantly different from the NIMS condition (M = 4.66, SD = 3.44).
However, the number of actions from the participant in the IE condition does not
differ significantly from the NIMS condition.
