Furthermore, there was a significant main effect of Dot Distance,
p < .001, with greater warping in the small spacing compared with larger spacing (
Figure 7). While there was no main effect of Viewing Distance,
p = .317, there was an interaction of Viewing Distance by Dot Distance,
p = 0.017. Follow-up tests revealed that warping was greater for small dot spacings when observed at farther distances than at closer distances (see
Figure 8). Surprisingly, there was also a main effect observed for Viewing Orientation,
p = .009, where the Dynamic condition exhibited greater warping (see
Figure 9). Although no main effect was observed for Response Modality,
p = .885, there was an interaction of Viewing Orientation by Response Modality,
p = .011 (see
Figure 10). Follow-up tests revealed that when using the Touch controller, warping was greater in Dynamic than Static Viewing Orientation, mean difference = 18.39,
p = .010. This was not the case for the mouse condition, which showed no difference in warping between Dynamic and Static Viewing Orientations, mean difference = 0.15,
p = .872. Finally, a three-way interaction was observed for Dot Distance, Viewing Orientation, and Response Modality,
p = 0.027, which showed that—although warping was greater on trials with small dot spacings than large dot spacings in general—there was a greater difference between small and large dot spacings, mean difference = 9.47,
p < .001, on trials with Touch controller responses and dynamically oriented displays compared with statically oriented displays, mean difference = 5.93,
p < .001.