the t-values for VR, in_vivo, and imaginal in_vivo are -0.715, -0.356, and 0.373 respectively. The negative t-values for VR and in_vivo suggest that the mean of the first group is less than the mean of the second group, while the positive t-value for imaginal in_vivo suggests the opposite. The P values for all three are quite high (greater than 0.05), suggesting that the differences observed could very well be due to chance, and we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The Pholm values are all 1.000, indicating that after Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, the results are still not statistically significant. In conclusion, based on this data, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference between VR and the traditional methods of exposure therapy. please summarise