## 6 Conclusions and Limitations  
We have used the TAM model [60]. As indicated above, this model is based on theories of social psychology, including the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. In general, these theories argue that human beings act rationally, so an analysis that studies these behaviors is possible. In our case, we proposed an experience based on AR and VR. These are emerging technologies, and it is necessary to establish what behaviors derive from their use. In this sense, we will ultimately be able to define new learning scenarios contextualized in today's society.  
As shown in the preceding pages, the use of AR and VR objects--i.e., MR objects--in university teaching aroused great interest among the students who took part in the study, and they also expressed a high degree of acceptance of the utilized technologies. All this leads us to conclude that the technology acceptance model developed by [PERSON] [60] proved effective in ascertaining the extent to which AR and VR technologies were accepted and as a tool to determine students' future intention to use them.  
More specifically, and with regard to the degree of acceptance, we must point out that no significant differences were found between the two objects, which suggests that students perceived that they were participating in a mixed reality experience, drawing no distinctions whatsoever between both resources and viewing the experience globally.  
The importance of the design of AR and VR objects and its link to aspects such as the usability of these objects was also noted.  
Although the scores given to the VR object were slightly better than those for the AR object, the differences were not statistically significant; hence our similar and positive assessment of both types of objects.  
The limitations of our research are linked to the small sample size of the study and the absence of a control group. All respondents were in the same Master's program and worked in groups; moreover, this is likely to be an incredibly biased source population. We would need to replicate the research in a larger group in order to reach definitive conclusions. We also consider it a limitation that we did not compare the results with a previously trained group; however, despite these limitations, this research provides results that can be used to promote the use of MR in learning.  
The last reflections in this paper aim to promote possible future lines of research. Among those that stand out: replicating the research with students enrolled in the Degree in Fine Arts; adding a test to analyze academic performance among the information collection instruments; and extending object production to other areas of knowledge.  
The authors [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness by the R&D+i Research project from the entitled: \"Augmented reality for increasing training. Design, production and evaluation of augmented reality programs for university teaching\", grant number (EDU2014-57446-P-RAFODIUN Project).  
Not applicable.  
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions of privacy.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.