1.02   1.08

  : Mean Values of Dependent Variables[]{data-label="tbl:average"}

We obtained 10 (drawings) $\times$ 4 (conditions) $\times$ 35 (subjects) = 1440 experimental data entries for each dependent variable. The mean values were computed and the results are shown in Table \[tbl:average\]. First, on performance measures, it can be seen that the subjects generally spent less time, exerted less effort and were more accurate when iteration number increased from condition c3, c6, c9 to c12. The performance efficiency also showed a clear increase across the conditions. In other words, the means of the performance measures were in good agreement with the pre-known overall quality.

  Variable          *F*(3,57)   *p*     Condition Pairs Detected Different (out of 6)
  ----------------- ----------- ------- -----------------------------------------------
  Time              2.804       0.048   (c3, c9), (c3, c12)
  Effort            7.491       0.000   (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (c3, c12)
  Accuracy          2.118       0.108   none
  Efficiency        7.442       0.000   (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (c3, c12)
  Overall quality   28.596      0.000   all pairs but (c9, c12)

To test whether these trends of changes were significant at the level of 0.05, we ran repeated ANOVA tests with post-hoc comparisons of the Least Square Difference (LSD) method on each of the dependent variables. The results are shown in Table \[tbl:anova\]. There was a significant main effect on time, effort and efficiency ($p < 0.05$), but not on accuracy ($p > 0.05$). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that these dependent variables had different levels of capacity in detecting condition differences. More specifically, out of the six condition pairs in total, time data only found that two pairs of the conditions were different; effort found three; and efficiency found three, while no difference was shown in accuracy between any pair of the conditions.

Second, on overall quality, the mean overall quality value was -2.14 for c3, 0.04 for c6, 1.02 for c
1.02    1.08 

  : Mean Values of Dependent Variables[]{data - label="tbl: average " } 

 We obtained 10 (drawings) $ \times$ 4 (condition) $ \times$ 35 (discipline) = 1440 experimental data entries for each dependent variable star. The mean values were computed and the consequence are shown in Table   \[tbl: average\ ]. First, on operation bill, it can be seen that the subjects generally spent less time, exerted less attempt and were more accurate when iteration number increased from condition c3, c6, c9 to c12. The operation efficiency also showed a clean increase across the weather. In other words, the means of the performance measures were in effective agreement with the pre - known overall quality. 

   Variable           * F*(3,57)    * p *      Condition Pairs Detected Different (out of 6) 
   ----------------- ----------- ------- ----------------------------------------------- 
   Time               2.804        0.048    (c3, c9), (c3, c12) 
   Effort             7.491        0.000    (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (c3, c12) 
   Accuracy           2.118        0.108    none 
   Efficiency         7.442        0.000    (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (c3, c12) 
   Overall quality    28.596       0.000    all pairs but (c9, c12) 

 To test whether these trends of changes were significant at the level of 0.05, we ran repeated ANOVA tests with post - hoc comparison of the Least Square Difference (LSD) method on each of the dependent variable. The result are shown in Table   \[tbl: anova\ ]. There was a significant chief effect on time, effort and efficiency ($ p < 0.05 $), but not on accuracy ($ phosphorus > 0.05 $). Post - hoc comparisons revealed that these dependent variables had different levels of capacity in detecting condition differences. More specifically, out of the six condition pair in total, clock time data only found that two pairs of the conditions were unlike; effort found three; and efficiency found three, while no difference was shown in accuracy between any pair of the conditions. 

 Second, on overall quality, the mean overall timbre value was -2.14 for c3, 0.04 for c6, 1.02 for c
1.02   1.08

  : Mean Values of Dependtnt Variables[]{data-label="tbn:averafe"}

We obtxined 10 (drawings) $\times$ 4 (condivionw) $\timtf$ 35 (subjects) = 1440 expefimental fata enteies dor each dxlendent variagpe. Tke mean values wgre computed and the resulds axe shown in Table \[tbl:average\]. First, on perforkajce measures, ij can fe ssvn that the subjects generally apent ltss time, exerted lrss effort and were more afcurwte when iteration number inctsasqe from condigion c3, c6, c9 to c12. The petformance efficiency also showed a clzar increasg zcgmss the convitionf. In other words, the means pf the performsncx meqsures were in good ajreement with the prg-known ovesaml quality.

  Variavlw          *F*(3,57)   *p*     Cpnsition Pamrs Detectes Different (out of 6)
  ----------------- ----------- ------- -----------------------------------------------
  Time              2.804       0.048   (s3, c9), (c3, c12)
  Effort            7.491       0.000   (c3, b6), (c3, d9), (c3, c12)
  Accuracy          2.118       0.108   none
  Efflciency        7.442       0.000   (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (c3, c12)
  Overall quality   28.596      0.000   alo iairr bkt (c9, c12)

To test whether these trends of changes sete significant ab the level of 0.05, we rwn tepeated ANOVA tests wifh post-hoc comparidons of the Oeast Squwre Cifference (LSD) method on eaxh of the deiendwnt variables. The xesults are rhowm in Yable \[tbl:anova\]. There was a sjgnificant lain effedg on time, effort anc afficiency ($p < 0.05$), but not on wccuracy ($' > 0.05$). Ppst-hoc zompsrisonf revealed that these dependent vagiablgs had different levels of capacity in detectinj condition dofxervnces. Morz speclfically, out of the six condijion pairf in gotal, time data oily found thwt two pairs mv the conditmons were difderebt; effofg found three; snd efficpeucy found three, while no dinferevde was shown in acxuracy between sny payr oh the wonditions.

Sewond, on pveraul quality, bhe meam overall quality vanue sas -2.14 for c3, 0.04 for c6, 1.02 fjr c
1.02 1.08 : Mean Values of Dependent obtained (drawings) $\times$ (conditions) $\times$ 35 entries each dependent variable. mean values were and the results are shown in \[tbl:average\]. First, on performance measures, it can be seen that the subjects generally less time, exerted less effort and were more accurate when iteration number increased condition c6, to The performance efficiency also showed a clear increase across the conditions. In other words, the means the performance measures were in good agreement with pre-known overall quality. Variable *p* Condition Pairs Detected Different of ----------------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------- 2.804 (c3, c9), (c3, Effort 7.491 0.000 (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (c3, c12) Accuracy 2.118 0.108 none Efficiency 7.442 0.000 (c3, (c3, c9), Overall quality 0.000 pairs (c9, c12) To these trends of changes were significant of 0.05, we ran repeated ANOVA tests with comparisons of Least Square Difference (LSD) method on of the dependent variables. The results are shown Table \[tbl:anova\]. There was a significant main effect on time, effort and efficiency ($p < not on accuracy ($p 0.05$). Post-hoc comparisons that dependent had levels of in detecting condition differences. More specifically, out of the six condition in total, time data only found that two pairs of were effort found three; efficiency found three, while difference shown in accuracy between of conditions. quality, mean quality value was -2.14 c3, 0.04 for c6, 1.02 c
1.02   1.08

  : Mean Values of Dependent VariAbles[]{data-lAbel="tBl:aVerAgE"}

We oBtaiNed 10 (drawings) $\timES$ 4 (conDitions) $\times$ 35 (subjects) = 1440 exPerimEnTAl daTA eNtrieS for eacH DePENdeNt VaRiaBlE. thE mean ValUes were Computed anD thE rEsults are shoWN iN Table \[tbl:aVerAge\]. First, on peRfoRmance MeAsuREs, it cAn bE seen That thE SubjecTs generalLy SPent leSS time, exERTeD lesS effort and were morE AcCUrate when iteraTion nuMbER iNCReaSed From conditIoN c3, c6, c9 tO C12. The perFOrMANCe eFFiciency also sHowed a clear INcrEase acRoSs tHE condiTions. in OTheR words, the meAns oF the perfoRmance MEasures WEre in goOd agreEmeNt wIth tHE pRe-KnoWn OVerALl QuaLIty.

  variable          *f*(3,57)   *p*     coNditiOn PaIRS dEtecTed diffErent (Out of 6)
  ----------------- ----------- ------- -----------------------------------------------
  Time              2.804       0.048   (c3, c9), (c3, c12)
  effOrt            7.491       0.000   (c3, C6), (C3, c9), (c3, C12)
  AccuRacy          2.118       0.108   nOne
  EFfIcienCy        7.442       0.000   (c3, c6), (c3, c9), (C3, c12)
  OveRaLl quality   28.596      0.000   all paiRs buT (c9, c12)

To test WheThEr tHeSe treNDs of chAngEs wEre signIficant AT thE lEVEL oF 0.05, we ran repeated ANOVa tESTs With post-Hoc comPArIsONs of the LEaSt SQuarE dIfferEnce (lsD) Method on Each of THe DePendent VaRiableS. THe rEsuLts arE ShowN in TabLe \[tbl:anoVa\]. TheRE was a significaNT main effect on TImE, EFfORt anD efFiciency ($p < 0.05$), buT not ON accUracY ($P > 0.05$). POst-HOc comParisOnS ReVEaled that these depenDeNt variAbles Had different lEvels of capACITy in deteCtinG CoNDition differenCes. MoRe specificALly, out of The siX conditiOn pairs in TOTal, time dAta OnlY foUnd THAt Two pairs of the CONditIoNs were dIffErent; efForT foUnd ThrEe; And efficiEncy founD tHrEe, WhIle No difFErence waS sHowN iN acCuracY BetweeN any pAir oF tHe COndItions.

SECoND, On ovErAlL quaLitY, tHe meaN oveRAll Quality Value was -2.14 fOr c3, 0.04 FOr c6, 1.02 fOr C
1.02   1.08

  : Mean Valu es of Depe ndent  Va ria bl es[] {dat a-label="tbl:a v erag e"}

We obtained 10 (d rawin gs )  $\t i me s$ 4(condit i on s )  $\ ti me s$35 (s ubjec ts)  = 1440  experimen tal  d ata entriesf or  each depe nde nt variable.  Th e mean  v alu e s wer e c omput ed and the re sults are  s h own in Table \ [ t bl :ave rage\]. First, on pe r formance measu res, i tc an b e s een  that thesu bject s  genera l ly s p ent less time, ex erted lesse ffo rt and  w ere more a ccura te whe n iteration  num ber incre ased f r om cond i tion c3 , c6,c9toc12. Th eper fo r man c eeff i cie ncy also  s ho wed a  cle a r i ncre ase  acr oss t he conditions . I n ot h erwords , the  mea ns  of t he per forma nc e measures were  ingood agre eme nt  wi th  thep re-kno wnove rall qu ality.  V ar i a b le           *F*(3,57 )*p *     Co nditio n  P ai r s Detect ed  Di ffer e n t (ou t of 6) 
  ----- ------ - -- -- - ----- -- ---- - -- --- - - ----- - ---- ------ -------- ----- - -------------- - -
  Time       2.8 04      0.048    ( c 3, c 9),( c3 , c 1 2)
 Effor t        7.491      0. 000  (c3,c6), (c3, c9) , (c3, c12 )  Accurac y      2.118      0.10 8   none
Efficien cy       7.4 42      0 . 000   (c 3,c6) , ( c3, c 9) , (c3, c12)
O vera ll  qualit y  28.596     0.0 00 all pairs  but (c9 ,c1 2) 
Totestw hether t he setr end s ofc hanges  were  sig ni fi c ant  at the le v e l of  0 .0 5, w e r an  repe ated ANO VA test s with po st- h oc c om pa risonsof the LeastSq uare Diffe re nce  (LSD) m ethod on  each of the dependentv ariable s.The r esul ts are sh own  in Ta ble \[tbl: anova\ ]. Th er e w a s  a si g n if ica nt  main effe c t  on  time ,effo rt andefficiency ($p < 0 . 05$ ), but not on  ac cura c y  ( $p>  0 . 05$ ). Pos t - hoc comparisons  revealedth a tthese depe n den tvariabl es haddiffe r ent lev els of ca pacity in  d etec t i ngconditiondifferen ces. More speci f ic ally,  ou t of t he  si x con dition pai rs in  total ,time d ata o nl y foundthat two pairs of the c onditi ons w ere  differen t;e ffo rt foundthre e; and eff ici enc y fou ndt hree,  whi l enod iffer ence was shown in  ac c u ra cy betweena n y  pa ir of  th e  condi tion s.

Second, on ov e rall quality,them e anove r allqu ality value wa s - 2. 1 4  for c3,  0 .04 for c6,  1.02 fo rc 
1.02 _ 1.08

_ : Mean Values_of Dependent_Variables[]{data-label="tbl:average"}

We_obtained 10_(drawings)_$\times$ 4 (conditions)_$\times$ 35 (subjects)_= 1440 experimental data_entries for each_dependent_variable. The mean values were computed and the results are shown in Table \[tbl:average\]. First,_on_performance measures,_it_can_be seen that the subjects_generally spent less time, exerted_less effort_and were more accurate when iteration number increased_from_condition c3, c6,_c9 to c12. The performance efficiency also showed a_clear increase across the conditions. In_other words, the_means_of_the performance measures were_in good agreement with the pre-known_overall quality.

  Variable  _      _*F*(3,57)   *p*  _  Condition Pairs Detected_Different (out_of 6)
  ----------------- -----------_------- -----------------------------------------------
 _Time _  _     _  _2.804     __0.048  _(c3,_c9),_(c3, c12)
_ Effort __ __     _7.491_      0.000_  (c3, c6),_(c3,_c9), (c3, c12)
 _Accuracy    _     2.118_ _ _  0.108   none
  Efficiency   _    7.442 _   _ 0.000__ (c3, c6),_(c3,_c9), (c3,_c12)
  Overall quality   28.596_ _   0.000  _all pairs but (c9,_c12)

To_test whether these trends of changes_were significant at the level of_0.05, we ran repeated ANOVA_tests_with_post-hoc comparisons of the Least_Square Difference (LSD) method on each_of the dependent_variables. The results are shown in Table \[tbl:anova\]._There_was a significant main effect on_time,_effort and efficiency ($p < 0.05$),_but_not_on accuracy ($p > 0.05$)._Post-hoc comparisons revealed that these dependent_variables had different levels of capacity in detecting condition_differences. More specifically,_out of the six condition_pairs_in_total, time data only found that two pairs of the_conditions were_different; effort found_three; and efficiency found three, while no difference was shown_in accuracy between any pair of the_conditions.

Second, on overall quality, the mean overall quality value was -2.14_for c3, 0.04 for c6, 1.02 for c