Results

**Table 4.7:** Nulling and Reported Presence Data for Experiment AIE2
	Cross-Over ( $^{\circ}$ /sec)				Reported Presence (1-7)
	1st Session		2nd Session		1st Session		2nd Session
Id	MCO	RCO	MCO	RCO	MRP	RRP	MRP	RRP
21	35	35	22.5	17.5	1	1	2	1
22	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	2	1	1	1
23	9	9	22.5	22.5	1	1	1	1
24	3	1.5	1.5	1.5	5	5	4	5
25	30	30	35	35	1	1	1	1
26	9	8	4	1.5	3	2	2	1
27	32.5	17.5	15	15	2	1	2	1
28	7.5	2.5	6.5	1.5	2	1	2	1
29	9	4	8	4	4	2	3	2
30	35	35	35	35	3	7	7	7
31	9	6.5	12	6.5	5	3	5	3
32	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	2	2	5	3
Mean	15.7	13.2	14.3	12.4	2.6	2.3	2.9	2.3
STD	13.2	13.0	12.0	12.7	1.4	1.9	1.9	2.0

Data from Experiment AIE2. Cross-over gives the inertial amplitude at which participants switch between visual and inertial dominance. (These data are the mean of cross-over ranges, as described in Section 4.2, except where an upper bound was not found. In these cases, the lower bound of 35 $^{\circ}$ /sec was used.) Higher values indicate more visual capture. Reported Presence gives the participant's per exposure report of their sense of ``being in'' the visual scene. Id is the participant number, equivalent to the participant numbers in Table 4.6. MCO and RCO give the cross-over amplitudes for the meaningful and random conditions, respectively. MRP and RRP give the reported presence ratings for the meaningful and random conditions, respectively. The bottom two rows give the mean and STD for each column.

The ANOVA Table for the cross-over data is given in Table 4.8. A main effects was found for treatment, with the ``meaningful'' condition higher than the ``random'' condition (F(1,11) = 8.7; p < .05).

The ANOVA Table for the reported presence data is given in Table 4.9. A trend was found for treatment, with the ``meaningful'' condition higher than the ``random'' condition (F(1,11) = 2.7; p < .10).

**Table 4.8:** Experiment AIE2 ANOVA Table for Cross-Over Data
Source	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
TREAT	56.3	1	56.3	8.7	p < .05
SESSION	14.1	1	14.1	0.3	p > .10
TREAT x SESSION	1.3	1	1.3	0.2	p > .10
P	6402.4	11	582.0
TREAT x P	71.0	11	6.5
SESSION x P	555.3	11	50.5
TREAT x SESSION x P	64.8	11	5.9
Total	7165.3	47

ANOVA table for cross-over data from Experiment AIE2. ``TREAT'' is the treatment condition with 2 levels (meaningful/random), ``SESSION'' is the session number with 2 levels, and ``P'' is participants with 12 levels. TREAT and SESSION were each tested by their interaction with P. The TREAT x SESSION interaction was tested by TREAT x SESSION x P.

**Table 4.9:** Experiment AIE2 ANOVA Table for Reported Presence Data
Source	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
TREAT	3.0	1	3.0	2.7	p < .10
SESSION	.3	1	.3	.3	p > .10
TREAT x SESSION	.3	1	.3	.6	p > .10
P	119.0	11	10.8
TREAT x P	12.0	11	1.1
SESSION x P	9.7	11	.9
TREAT x SESSION x P	5.7	11	.5
Total	150.0	47

ANOVA table for cross-over data from Experiment AIE2. ``TREAT'' is the treatment condition with 2 levels (meaningful/random), ``SESSION'' is the session number with 2 levels, and ``P'' is participants with 12 levels. TREAT and SESSION were each tested by their interaction with P. The TREAT x SESSION interaction was tested by TREAT x SESSION x P.

The test-retest correlation between sessions is .83 for the visual-inertial nulling measure and .80 for the reported presence measure.

Table 4.10 gives the correlation between the EFT scores for each participant and the mean across sessions of the meaningful and random data for both measures. At the current sample size, none of these correlations are significantly different from zero (p < .05).

**Table 4.10:** Correlations Between EFT Scores and the Two Dependent Measures
	Cross-Over		Reported Presence
	Meaningful	Random	Meaningful	Random
EFT	.45(.14)	.42(.18)	.04(.90)	.28(.37)

The correlation between the Embedded Figures Test scores and the cross-over and reported presence data for each of the meaningful and random conditions. The significance of each correlation is given in parentheses, for the null hypothesis that the correlation is zero. While the cross-over correlations appear higher, none of these correlations are significantly different from zero at the current sample size.

The correlation of the cross-over data with the reported presence data for each subject is .06.

The correlation of the difference between conditions for the visual-inertial nulling measure with the difference between conditions for the reported presence measure is .38. There is a trend for this correlation being significantly different from zero (p < .07).

In the post-experiment debrief, 10 of the 12 participants reported (incorrectly) believing that the vection-inertial phase angle varied between trials. One was uncertain and one believed (correctly) that the phase angle was always the same.