## 4 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of Coincidence between Physical Prototypes and HHP  
Table 1 shows the sum of the answers given to each attribute indicating the level of coincidence for product type A between both experiments: physical prototype and HHP method. From the sum of the results obtained in all adjectives by the level of coincidence, it can be deduced that in 216 responses the deviation of the results was \(\pm 1\) on a weighting of 5 points. Secondly, and no less representatively, 201 answers were obtained with total coincidence in the answers, the numerical value of the rest of the answers were much lower. Therefore, in a first approximation of the results, it was detected that the  
Figure 8: Manipulation of the sample A and vision of the AR through a tablet. Figure 7: Manipulation of sample A.  
HHP method allows the analysis of haptic-visual properties in the field of industrial design, generating an evaluable sensory experience [45]. On the other hand, Figure 9 shows the results obtained in Table 1 as a percentage of responses. An overall analysis of the results shows that the deviation of \(\pm 3\) and \(\pm 4\) is reduced in comparison to the responses that present a greater similarity. Thus, of the 10 attributes studied, the answers in 5 of them present a total coincidence: silky, dirty, abrasive, clean and smooth. Among them, the adjective \"abrasive\" stands out, for which 57.1% of the participants coincided in their answers in both experiments. The minimum value of these terms is reached by the \"smooth\" attribute with 33.9%, which means a difference of 23.2% between these terms. This adjective is also the one that presents similar values between total coincidence, \(\pm 1\), \(\pm 2\) and \(\pm 3\). This may be due to the fact that product type A presents angulated plane changes where the surface finish of the plastic material is intentionally non-abrasive, due to the lack of discontinuities that the product presents, to evaluate the degree of flatness of a piece is complex, with which the degree of dispersion of responses is higher. As to the degree of coincidence \(\pm 1\), the adjectives that stand out are \"rough\", \"soft\", \"sharp-edge\", \"slippery\" and \"adherent\". Where the highest value is for \"adherent\" with 53.6% and the lowest for \"soft\" and \"sharp-edge\" with 42.9%. These data indicate that there is a difference between these terms of 10.7%. It is also important to point out that the adjectives \"soft\", \"sharp-edge\" and \"smooth\" present a percentage of answers with a \(\pm 2\) coincidence between 20% and 30%. It is possible that the adjective \"soft\" has the same difficulty for users as the term \"smooth\" since both are related to the lack of discontinuities in the surface of the pieces. On the other hand, the term \"sharp-edge\" can direct the attention of respondents from the proposed reliefs to the edges of the pieces and cause a distortion in the statistics. As an overall result of the study of product type A it was obtained that 74.5% of the answers are concentrated between the total coincidence and \(\pm 1\). This result indicates that respondents tend to repeat their answers between the first and second phases exactly or with the minimum deviation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Silky** & **Dirty** & **Abrasive** & **Rough** & **Soft** & **Sharp-Edge** & **Clean** & **Slippery** & **Adherent** & **Smooth** & \(\Sigma\) \\ \hline
**C** & 24 & 22 & 32 & 24 & 14 & 12 & 25 & 18 & 11 & 19 & 201 \\
**C\(\pm\)1** & 19 & 19 & 18 & 26 & 24 & 24 & 18 & 24 & 30 & 14 & 216 \\
**C\(\pm\)2** & 9 & 8 & 4 & 2 & 15 & 16 & 9 & 11 & 11 & 16 & 101 \\
**C\(\pm\)3** & 4 & 6 & 1 & 4 & 3 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 4 & 4 & 36 \\
**C\(\pm\)4** & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Number of accumulated responses according to the degree of coincidence of product A.  
Figure 9: Cumulative coincidence of responses for product type A.