## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
A number of conclusions can be drawn from our study:  
1. The diagnostic instrument--[PERSON]'s IMMS--appears to be a good predictor to explain the motivation, attention, confidence, relevance and satisfaction raised by the interaction with AR objects. This is true regardless of the specific AR object that they interacted with and of the subject in which the students were enrolled. In this respect, our findings match those obtained in other works carried out by different authors [24; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79]. 2. The instrument utilized has a high reliability index, once again showing a coincidence with the results achieved by other authors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Student’s t-Value** & **Significance** \\ \hline Video use & 16.107 & 0.000 (**) \\ \hline Anatomy & 17.323 & 0.000 (**) \\ \hline Art & 14.468 & 0.000 (**) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Student’s t-values (note: ** = significant at p \(\leq\) 0.01). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient** & **Global** & **Attention** & **Confidence** & **Relevance** & **Satisfaction** \\ \hline Video use & 0.321(**) & 0.348(**) & 0.289(*) & 0.256(**) & 0.201(*) \\ \hline Anatomy & 0.52(**) & 0.491(**) & 0.323*(*) & 0.321(**) & 0.383(**) \\ \hline Art & 0.432 (**) & 0.398 (**) & 0.315 (**) & 0.2989 (**) & 0.356 (**) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Correlations between the performance and motivation shown by students and the levels of confidence (C), attention (A), satisfaction (S) and relevance (R), by identified t-values (note: significant at * = 0.05 and **). Our first findings clearly suggest that students' interaction with learning objects created by means of AR technology significantly improved the scores obtained in the pre-test that had been administered to them with the aim of checking those students' previous knowledge in relation to the contents presented in the AR objects--regardless of the specific content developed. Therefore, AR arguably constitutes a useful means to facilitate learning and knowledge acquisition. These results also follow along the same lines as the conclusions drawn by previous authors [32; 73; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80]. As a limitation faced in this study, it is worth highlighting the impossibility of generalizing the results obtained. Being a pre-experimental design, its results must be adopted with caution. The preceding conclusions thus refer to the context where the research took place. Furthermore, the experiences of students with the AR objects produced were very specific and focused on three knowledge areas, to which it must be added that the duration of the experience was short. This suggests the need to propose new research initiatives, either enlarging the sample or designing the sample in accordance with another methodological model. The possibility also exists to replicate the study with other groups of students and with students from other universities. We could additionally undertake longitudinal studies, in which students work with AR-based learning objects, and verify the extent to which the findings remain constant. It would finally be possible to enlarge the knowledge areas presented here or to add other cognitive variables worthy of consideration, such as cognitive styles. Conceptualization, J.C. and R.R. ; methodology, J.C. and R. R.; software, J.C.; validation, J.C. and R.R. ; formal analysis, R.R. ; investigation, J.C. and R.R. ; resources, R.R. ; data curation, J.C.; writing--original draft preparation, J.C. and R.R. ; writing--review and editing, J.C. and R.R. ; visualization, R.R. ; supervision, R.R. ; project administration, J.C.; funding acquisition, J.C. This research was funded by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad del Gobierno de Espana [Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government] entitled: \"Realidad aumentada para aumentar la formacion.