## 4 Discussion
The perception of \"Appeal\" also shows varied ratings based on the technologies, although for this specific case, the 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation becomes the worst-valued one, while i_VR is the best considered. However, if we focus on the two perceptions best valued in terms of importance, \"Quality and \"Dimensions and Shape\", the best-rated display technology is 360\({}^{\circ}\) in both cases. It should be noted that the study sample was chosen considering that the answers are matched pairs. Therefore, the power is lower in the case of comparisons between AR and (ni_ and i_)VR technologies, since only half of the sample assessed them. However, the perception of Mode of Use (Table 4) is the only case for which the maximum and minimum values correspond to AR and VR, with a difference between means of 0.33 points; that is, it is less than our effect size of 0.5. Therefore, even with the analysis by matched pairs, significant differences still might not have been found. It is therefore concluded that, although there is not enough power for comparisons between AR and VR technologies, they would not have been detected with the general power of the study. In the case of \"Appeal\", where the difference between the ratings of the technologies stands out, no significant difference was detected between the extreme ratings (i_VR and 360\({}^{\circ}\)), and it had the maximum power of the study. Thus, overall, the 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation technology stands out among the technologies studied, as it is well accepted as allowing the best perception of some of the most important features considered. Among these, there are general physical features of the product (\"Dimensions and Shape\"), detailed physical features (\"Materials\", \"Finishes\", and \"Details\"), and functional features (\"Quality\"). Therefore, it is an appropriate technique to achieve an adequate general perception of the product displayed. However, users already have some experience with this technology, which should be considered because it could have influenced the results. In addition, it must be noted that it is not very suitable for the perception of aesthetic features (Appeal), so if this perception has a special relevance in the product-user interaction, the use of i_VR is recommended, instead of the 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation. However, these overall results suffer some variations if the assessments are analyzed according to the type of product. In the case of the sideboard features, it can be seen that the perceptions obtained through i_VR achieve the highest rating in 7 of the 10 features considered, including two of the three most important perceptions: appeal, as in the general case, and also the perception of quality, which in the global case was better valued through a 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation. The most important perception, \"Dimensions and Shape\", continues to obtain a higher rating in 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation, as well as \"Color\", \"Details\", and \"Mode of Use\" (although in this perception, the rating of the i_VR is very similar). Seven out of the 10 features analyzed, including \"Quality\", \"Reliability\", and \"Appeal\", are the worst perceived through rendered images for the sideboard. AR obtained the lowest rating in the perceptions of four features, including the most important, \"Dimensions and Shape\". In the case of the gooseneck lamp, the opposite occurs, and many of the highest ratings are obtained by rendered images. This occurs in six features, including the three most important (\"Dimensions and Shape\", \"Quality\", and \"Appeal\"), while VR (mainly ni_VR) often has the lowest ratings. This does not happen in the perception of \"Appeal\". Following the previous results, this perception is well valued. For the perception of the details, a greater difference between ratings of the technologies is observed for the gooseneck lamp than in the case of the sideboard, probably because it is a smaller product with a greater number of small elements.