## 4 Discussion
In this paper, we have shown that most users did not find differences in \"Appeal\" between real and display technologies interactions, although those who did find them also indicated that the appeal was higher in the real product. In any case, it should be noted that in this study the perception came not only from ni_VR but from a set of varied display technologies. Some other results obtained agree with [PERSON] et al. [29]. In their study, the product (a chair) was perceived to be larger in a room (real product) than through i_VR and ni_VR. Similarly, in our study, it was seen that most of the VR users perceived both products (sideboard and gooseneck lamp) to be bigger in reality than through display technologies. However, in other cases, the perception depends on the type of product. Thus, while [PERSON] et al. [29] identified that the chair was perceived as being lighter in a room than by the use of VR with haptics, the results of this work show that the perception of lightness among VR users depends on the product. These results corroborate the fact that the study of perceptions achieved through display technologies should consider the specific features of the product displayed. In this sense, this work represents an interesting contribution since previous studies usually compared perceptions between different models of only one type of product, but not between different products [29; 33; 34; 35]. In this research, two well-known products with really different features were studied, and further research should continue to extend the comparison of perceptions obtained through display technologies for other types of products. Moreover, it is not usual in the literature to use such a wide variety of technologies in the comparison of product perceptions, including rendered images, 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation, AR, i_VR, and ni_VR. In this regard, it is worth highlighting the work of [PERSON] et al. [34], which considers photographs or renders, AR, and VR, although it is focused on a single type of product and is based on an approach that assesses the reliability of these XR tools for the early stages of product development and assessment. Another notable contribution of this work is the comparison of the perceptions generated by the real product with those obtained by means of the technologies. Unlike other studies in which the perception of the real product is compared with specific technologies, in this work, the comparison is with the general perception generated by a set of these technologies. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish which of the technologies has caused the previous perceptions about the product or if these were produced as a result of the use of all of them. However, this fact is not seen as a limitation, but on the contrary, it tries to reproduce a probably more realistic situation since it is usual for interactions, such as an online sales environment, to include different display technologies, and for products to be shown through a combination of images (real or rendered), 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation, and at least one of the XR technologies (AR or VR). Note that the study could reproduce, for instance, the real context of a purchase: Phase 1 (perceptions through technologies) is conducted from the smartphone and location chosen by the user, and a few days later, the real product is shown (Phase 2), which is compared to the idea held by the user. As a limitation of the study, the results have been obtained for the types of products considered. Moreover, it should be noted that, by dividing the sample between AR and VR users, in the comparison between these technologies, only half of the data was available, while for the analysis of the 2D or 360\({}^{\circ}\) technologies, it was possible to use the data for the entire sample. This could have had an influence when finding significant differences in some perceptions between these AR and VR technologies.