**5. Results**

### **5.1 Results of pilot**

1.Comparison between digital and paper materials

The average of decision time by digital was faster than those of paper (**Figures 3** and **4**), and the correlations with the number of words of digital were stronger than those of paper (**Tables 2** and **3**).

#### **Figure 3.**

*Comparison of decision time during testing with paper or digital presented questionnaires by sound voice (paper or display) and leteers on display.*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Comparison of decision time during testing with paper and digital presented quessionnaires by letters on paper or display and sound voice with digital.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Correlation coefficient (pilot experiments 2).*

2.Comparison between sound voice and letters media

The average of decision time of sound voice presentation was longer than those of letters (**Figure 4**).

#### **5.2 Results of preliminary experiment**

1.Verifying reproducibility

From the results of presentation by sound voice, there were no differences observed in terms of the average of decision time for each number of words between first and second experiment, in addition to correlation coefficient and dispersion (**Figures 5** and **6**). In the case of letter presentation, the results of comparison between the first and the second experiment were similar to those of sound voice, but the second average of decision time was faster than the first ones (**Figure 6**).

It is supposed the dispersion of decision time of letter presentation is larger and caused individual differences when comparing with sound voice presentation.

2.Comparison between visual and auditory type

There was no difference between visual and auditory type regarding the average of decision time and correlation coefficients (**Figure 7**).

**133**

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 5.**

**Figure 6.**

*Toward Clarifying Human Information Processing by Analyzing Big Data: Making Criteria…*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86037*

*Comparison of decision time between the first and the second by sound voice.*

*Comparison of decision time between the first and the second by letters.*

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type by sound voice.*

*Toward Clarifying Human Information Processing by Analyzing Big Data: Making Criteria… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86037*

#### **Figure 5.**

*Strategy and Behaviors in the Digital Economy*

2.Comparison between sound voice and letters media

2.Comparison between visual and auditory type

of decision time and correlation coefficients (**Figure 7**).

The average of decision time of sound voice presentation was longer than those

*Comparison of decision time during testing with paper and digital presented quessionnaires by letters on paper* 

From the results of presentation by sound voice, there were no differences observed in terms of the average of decision time for each number of words between first and second experiment, in addition to correlation coefficient and dispersion (**Figures 5** and **6**). In the case of letter presentation, the results of comparison between the first and the second experiment were similar to those of sound voice, but the second average of decision time was faster than the first ones

It is supposed the dispersion of decision time of letter presentation is larger and

There was no difference between visual and auditory type regarding the average

caused individual differences when comparing with sound voice presentation.

**132**

(**Figure 6**).

of letters (**Figure 4**).

**Table 3.**

**Figure 4.**

**5.2 Results of preliminary experiment**

1.Verifying reproducibility

*Correlation coefficient (pilot experiments 2).*

*or display and sound voice with digital.*

*Comparison of decision time between the first and the second by sound voice.*

**Figure 6.**

*Comparison of decision time between the first and the second by letters.*

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type by sound voice.*

In the presentation of letter case, the average of decision time for visual type was faster than auditory type (**Figure 8**, **Table 4**).

#### **Figure 8.**

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type presented by letters.*


#### **Table 4.**

*Criteria of cognitive style for information processing.*

#### **Figure 9.**

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type presented by sound voice (practical experiment).*

**135**

**Figure 10.**

**Figure 11.**

sis, and the criteria are verified.

**5.3 Results of practical experiment**

*Toward Clarifying Human Information Processing by Analyzing Big Data: Making Criteria…*

Because there were observed similar results between the first and the second experiment, it is supposed the reproducibility of measurements, method of analy-

*Comparison of students' performance the first and second semester between visual and auditory type.*

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type presented by letters (practical experiment).*

There were 12 students of visual type and 31 students of auditory type, according to the criteria of cognitive type in terms of information processing. There were no differences of the results in sound voice presentation between types regarding to the average of decision time depending on the number of words (**Figure 9**). In contrast, there were differences of the results in letter presentation between two types, regarding the average of decision time and the strength of correlation between decision time and the number of words (**Figure 10**). The tendency of a reciprocation between visual and auditory type concerning with the results of students' performance between the first and the second semester (**Figure 11**) was observed.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86037*

*Toward Clarifying Human Information Processing by Analyzing Big Data: Making Criteria… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86037*

#### **Figure 10.**

*Strategy and Behaviors in the Digital Economy*

faster than auditory type (**Figure 8**, **Table 4**).

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type presented by letters.*

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type presented by sound voice (practical* 

In the presentation of letter case, the average of decision time for visual type was

**134**

**Figure 9.**

*experiment).*

**Figure 8.**

**Table 4.**

*Criteria of cognitive style for information processing.*

*Comparison of decision time between visual and auditory type presented by letters (practical experiment).*

#### **Figure 11.**

*Comparison of students' performance the first and second semester between visual and auditory type.*

Because there were observed similar results between the first and the second experiment, it is supposed the reproducibility of measurements, method of analysis, and the criteria are verified.

#### **5.3 Results of practical experiment**

There were 12 students of visual type and 31 students of auditory type, according to the criteria of cognitive type in terms of information processing. There were no differences of the results in sound voice presentation between types regarding to the average of decision time depending on the number of words (**Figure 9**). In contrast, there were differences of the results in letter presentation between two types, regarding the average of decision time and the strength of correlation between decision time and the number of words (**Figure 10**). The tendency of a reciprocation between visual and auditory type concerning with the results of students' performance between the first and the second semester (**Figure 11**) was observed.
