## 2 Related Work  
### User Experience: Perceptions in Interaction with New Display Technologies  
Extended reality (XR) technology, including AR and VR, has been applied in different domains, as it presents promising opportunities for transforming commerce, management, and business education [27], among other areas. Thus, augmented reality, which displays virtual images of a product in a real environment, has applications in diverse fields such as manufacturing, learning, medicine, or marketing [1; 23; 28; 29]. In VR technology, the entire environment with which the user interacts is virtual. VR systems are also applied in domains such as education, industry, health, or retail, among others [30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35]. This growth of the development of new display devices and systems has caused the need to analyse their influence on the subjective perceptions generated in the user [36], since the user's responses and decisions depend on these perceptions [37; 38]. Studies have emerged comparing some of these new display technologies with classic display methods, such as the comparison between AR technologies and traditional web-based product presentations [8] or between non-immersive VR and static photos [9]. In other cases, several display technologies are compared between them, sometimes including haptics [12; 13; 15] or with the real interaction of the product [10; 11; 39]. Sometimes, studies are focused on product assessment in the early stages of the product development process [10; 40]. The results of these studies allow us to conclude that the perception of certain product features depends on the display technology used. For example, [PERSON] et al. [13] stated that the attractiveness and size of the product (a chair) was perceived to be higher in real interaction than through VR. However, these studies usually compare few technologies or are applied to a single product. The work by [PERSON] et al. [16] compared the perceptions achieved in 10 design features, related to physical, detailed, functional, and aesthetic aspects, in five display technologies (image rendering, 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation display, augmented reality, and non-immersive and immersive VR), for two different products, finding that 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation provided the best perception for what are considered the most important features, while aesthetic features were better achieved by immersive VR. But the overall user experience goes further and will be conditioned by the usage properties offered by display technologies, so its analysis involves expanding the understanding necessary to optimize the way products are presented. There are numerous studies that analyse user preferences and perceptions generated in the interaction with technologies, such as the study by [PERSON] et al. [41], in which three interaction methods in virtual reality were compared (haptic feedback, traditional controls, and hand tracking) and their influence on user experience was evaluated, concluding that users felt an aversion to non-haptic hand tracking in simpler tasks and preferred controllers in more complex ones. Also for applications of AR technology, some studies compared user experience depending on the type of interaction, such as the study by [PERSON] et al. [42] in which it was seen that humanoid intelligent virtual agents with or without emotional expressions provided greater credibility, attractiveness, and novelty than a voice assistant, so their incorporation in AR applications could be beneficial. [PERSON] et al. [43] is another example. They developed a desktop-simulated testing environment to experiment on information presentation with AR remotely. Users rated the pragmatic qualities of efficiency, perspicuity, and dependability as good, while attractiveness and stimulation were rated as excellent.