Fig 1.
(A, B) Participants’ view within the maze, and the view of the goal (red box). (C,D) The layout of the two mazes. The left, simple maze has one decision point on its path to the goal, the difficult maze has three decision points on its path to the goal. Note that this layout was never shown to participants.
Fig 2.
(A) The recruitment page of the navigation study. Participants are prompted to participate in order to learn about their navigation style. (B) The results page of the navigation study. Participants are assessed based on their traveled distance and the time they needed. Participants are also provided additional material explaining the test results in greater detail.
Fig 3.
(A) Performance of participants as measured by completion times in seconds, divided by gender and maze difficulty. (B) Errors made by participants at decision points, divided by gender and maze difficulty.
Table 1.
Mean and standard deviations (in brackets) of error rate and completion times separated by gender and maze difficulty.
Table 2.
Summary of our statistical analyses for the maze study, compared to the analysis results reported in the original study.
Fig 4.
Heatmap of the walking path, divided by gender, maze type (easy, hard), and trial number.
The heatmaps visualize participants improvement in escaping the mazes when trying multiple times. Furthermore, the heatmaps show gender differences in walking paths.
Fig 5.
Participants’ view in the conditions short and tall, in the two different gender conditions.
Note that only gender is varied within-subjects, while the height condition is only manipulated between subjects.
Fig 6.
(A) The recruitment page of the negotiation study. Participants are prompted to participate in order to learn about their negotiation skills. (B) The results page of the negotiation study. Participants are assessed based on the total amount of virtual money earned and on their confidence in negotiation.
Table 3.
Mean and standard deviations (in brackets) of the Split 1 and Split 2 offer type rounds and the unfair offers by the confederate acceptance rate.
For comparison, we include the results reported in the original study.
Table 4.
Devices used by participants who completed the tests, aggregated over our two tests.
Table 5.
Experience with HMD devices of participants on the experiment platform, aggregated over our two test.
Fig 7.
Nationality distribution of both of our experiments, or participants who completed our tests.
We compare our demographics distribution with the data reported from LabintheWild as reported in [3].
Table 6.
Age and gender distribution of both of our experiments of participants who completed our tests.