## 4 Discussion  
This study aims to contribute to the understanding of product perceptions generated by different display methods (including AR and VR technology) and compare them with those produced in real interaction. Some results presented in [32] are now expanded to consider ten product features instead of five, including i_VR as a new technology, and studying aspects not considered there, such as the importance of the perception of each design feature or the comparison with perceptions in interaction with the real product. Two everyday products with different design features were chosen. This breadth in the study has allowed us to obtain new results, which are discussed in the following. The technologies with which the participants indicate they have less experience are AR and i_VR. The perception of the product design features, globally, is scored in a similar  
Figure 11: Percentage of participants who perceived the real product differently than through the technologies, separating by product. See Table 3 for the meaning of “Above” and “Below” for each feature. Figure 10: Percentage of participants that perceived the real product differently than through technologies. See Table 3, for the meaning of “Above” and “Below” for each feature. way for all the technologies, with ratings between 3.56 and 3.80. Although there is not a big difference, the 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation technology stands out with the highest rating, while the ni_VR technology is the worst valued. Rendered images AR and i_VR have scored similarly overall. Considering that a rating scale of 1 to 5 was used, the mean ratings obtained are only slightly above the central neutral value. Therefore, the general assessment of the perception is not rated very well. Moreover, it does not seem to be related to the current degree of development of the technologies, since display methods with different levels of development (such as 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation or VR) were rated in a similar way. Although at a global level, the statement \"The perceptions generated about product features may be different, if they come from different display technologies\" from hypothesis H1 does not seem to be verified. Breaking down by features, some more differences can be observed in the ratings, although not in all of them; it depends on the specific perception considered. Additionally, the assessment of the importance of the perception of the features allows for a more complete analysis of the results. In general, all feature perceptions are considered important, since the importance ratings are close to 4 or higher (especially for \"Appeal\", \"Quality\", and Dimensions and Shape). The features related to general physical aspects (Dimensions and Shape and Weight) have the most extreme importance scores, with the first considered as the most important, and the second the least. Detail features do not reach scores higher than 4, so they are generally considered less important than those related to functionality, which are more distributed, with \"Quality\" being the most notable. Finally, the feature on attractiveness, \"Appeal\", also stands out as the third-most important. Although, as it has been said, the features have been valued in general as important, these perceptions do not seem to be properly displayed by technologies, since ratings sometimes have values that barely exceed the average value, as in the case of \"Weight\" or \"Reliability\" (with ratings close to 3.5). Even so, significant differences were detected for two perceptions considered least important. For the \"Weight\" perception, a difference was detected between i_VR (considered the best perception) and rendered images (rated as the worst one). The biggest differences between technologies occur in the perception of \"Details\", where a significant difference was detected between the 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation, which was the best value for perceiving details, and ni_VR, which was the worst one.