Next Article in Journal
A Review of Socially Assistive Robotics in Supporting Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Previous Article in Journal
Analyzing Player Behavior in a VR Game for Children Using Gameplay Telemetry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
MTI
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/mti9090097
mti-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Consumer Perception of Augmented Reality (AR) Tools for Displaying and Understanding Nutrition Labels: A Pilot Study

by
Cristina Botinestean
1,
Stergios Melios
1,2 and
Emily Crofton
1,*
1
Ashtown Food Research Centre, Ashtown, D15 DY05 Dublin, Ireland
2
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9(9), 97; https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090097
Submission received: 5 February 2025 / Revised: 1 September 2025 / Accepted: 4 September 2025 / Published: 16 September 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Augmented reality (AR) technology offers a promising approach to providing consumers with detailed and personalized information about food products. The aim of this pilot study was to explore how the use of AR tools comprising visual and auditory formats affects consumers’ perception and understanding of nutrition labels of two commercially available products (lasagne ready meal and strawberry yogurt). The nutritional information of both the lasagne and yogurt product were presented to consumers (n = 30) under three experimental conditions: original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR. Consumers answered questions about their perceptions of the products’ overall healthiness, caloric content, and macronutrient composition, as well as how the information was presented. The results showed that while nutritional information presented under the original packaging condition was more effective in changing consumer perceptions, the AR tools were found to be more “novel” and “memorable”. More specifically, for both lasagne and yogurt, the visual AR tool resulted in a more memorable experience compared to original packaging. The use of visual AR and visual and audio AR tools were considered novel experiences for both products. However, the provision of nutritional information had a greater impact on product perception than the specific experimental condition used to present it. These results provide evidence from a pilot study supporting the development of an AR tool for displaying and potentially improving the understanding of nutrition labels.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of technology, particularly the growing use of augmented reality (AR), has significantly influenced various sectors, including food science. Reality refers to physical objects and environments in the real world, while virtual reality (VR) involves computer-generated environments that are not connected to real-life surroundings. VR may include fully digital worlds or immersive content created using 360° cameras. In contrast, AR overlays digital information, such as text, images, or 3D models, on top of what the user sees in real time [1].
AR offers a dynamic and interactive platform that can not only transform consumer engagement but also support more informed decision-making by providing contextual, real-time information. This capability is particularly important in the context of a growing global population and rising concerns about food quality, safety, and sustainability [2]. By improving consumers’ ability to assess intrinsic and extrinsic food characteristics, AR has the potential to play a key role in promoting healthier, safer, and more sustainable food choices.
Several interactive AR-based tools have been developed with the aim of enhancing food literacy among consumers. These technologies could not only aid consumers in understanding nutritional health and dietary implications but also support producers in adhering to food safety regulations and industry standards [3,4,5,6,7,8]. In parallel, recent advancements in AR technology offer new opportunities for exploring consumers’ sensory perceptions of food. By integrating multimodal stimuli, specifically the combination of visual and auditory cues, AR environments can simulate enriched sensory contexts. These multisensory experiences may alter the way individuals perceive and evaluate food attributes such as taste, texture, and appearance [9,10]. This highlights the potential of AR to enhance consumer sensory evaluation through multisensory interactions [11]. Moreover, the potential of AR and other emerging technologies in advancing nutritional education has also gained increasing attention. AR-based tools could transform how individuals engage with food and nutrition by offering interactive, personalized information and real-time guidance on healthy choices and portion sizes [12].
Similarly, in a world where almost everyone owns a smartphone, AR can be used to provide consumers with detailed food-related information simply by pointing their device at packaging. This can offer allergen warnings, ingredient lists, and personalized dietary recommendations based on individual preferences [13,14]. Other applications include enhancing transparency regarding food origins, sourcing, and sustainability practices through label scanning [15]; providing real-time recipe suggestions, instructional videos, and ingredient substitutions [16]; and helping consumers identify allergens [17]. Additionally, AR can enhance brand engagement through immersive experiences such as 3D animations, product demos, and interactive games, fostering consumer loyalty and interaction [18].
More specifically, ongoing research efforts by both academic institutions and the food industry aim to expand AR capabilities in this domain. For example, Chen et al. (2019) introduced NutriAR, an augmented reality system that uses computer vision techniques to recognize food and provide nutritional information [19]. This system allows users to point their smartphone camera at a food item, displaying real-time nutritional information and recommendations through AR overlays. Similarly, Silva et al. (2020) proposed an AR tool that delivers personalized nutritional information based on users’ dietary needs and preferences, integrating AR, machine learning, and data analytics to offer real-time recommendations and educational content [20]. Another example is ARFood, an AR-based, personalized food recommendation system that provides nutritional information and suggests food choices tailored to user preferences, dietary restrictions, and health goals [21].
Integrating AR into food systems presents new opportunities to support informed food choices and enhance consumer engagement. In the context of nutrition education, for instance, AR can support personalised, self-directed learning by promoting interactivity and improving knowledge retention through immersive experiences [22]. However, the effectiveness of AR depends heavily on how its features are utilised. One study found that although only 4.6% of customers had good knowledge of nutritional labelling, 71.3% expressed positive attitudes towards it. Nutrilabelapps©, an AR tool, was well received, with high feasibility and acceptability ratings [8]. Additionally, consumers using AR tools to access nutritional data reported basing their decisions more on this information than on visual or branding cues, signalling a shift in behaviour at the point of purchase [23]. Even basic applications, such as an app that visualized the number of teaspoons of sugar in beverages, has been shown raise consumer awareness of the impact of sugar intake [24].
This study presents the development and evaluation of an AR tool designed to present nutritional information through two modalities: visual only and a combined visual plus auditory format. A key contribution of this research lies in its novel exploration of auditory AR within the context of nutritional labelling, an area where auditory cues remain largely underexplored. By integrating audio alongside visual stimuli, the study investigates whether multisensory AR interactions can improve consumer understanding, engagement, and perception of two distinct food products: lasagne and yogurt.
The study was structured around three primary objectives. First, we assessed which of the two AR tools (visual AR or visual and audio AR) more effectively supported consumers in understanding nutritional information, and how both compared to original product packaging. This evaluation focused on consumer perceptions of healthiness, caloric content, and macronutrient composition for lasagne and yogurt product. Second, we examined consumers’ overall perceptions within the three experimental conditions (original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR) with respect to clarity, novelty, and perceived usefulness. This allowed us to explore potential barriers to adoption of AR-based nutritional communication. Third, we investigated the broader effect of nutritional information provision itself on consumer perception of food healthiness, specifically examining whether the presence of such information, regardless of format, affects consumer evaluation, as well as whether the experimental condition (i.e., the method of presentation—original packaging, visual AR or visual and audio AR) plays a significant role in shaping these perceptions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 30 participants were recruited voluntary via an internal email within Teagasc Food Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland, and word of mouth. Participants were included if they (1) were aged 18 years or older; (2) were able to use a smartphone; and (3) had no existing medical conditions that affect sight and hearing. Due to the exploratory nature of the research, quotas for gender and age were not applied during recruitment, and there was an over-representation of female participants (67%) and an overall mean age of 32.6 ± 10.4 years. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to data collection.

2.2. Products

To test participants’ use and understanding of front-of-pack nutrition labels using AR, a single portion of a beef lasagne ready meal and a strawberry yogurt were selected as study stimuli due to their differences in terms of nutritional content, perceived healthiness and usage occasions. Both products were commercially available in the Republic of Ireland and had front-of-pack nutrition labelling in the form of the traffic light system whereby the colours green, amber and red indicated whether the product contained a low, medium or high quantity of fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt. Energy information, expressed in kilojoules (kJ) and kilocalories (kcal), was also listed on the traffic light label on the front of each product package (Figure 1). The nutrition information per 100 g was listed as per Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 at the back of each package; however, as the primary aim of this study was to investigate how an AR application could promote consumer understanding of front-of-pack nutrition labelling, the back of pack nutrition label was not presented for the purpose of this study.

2.3. Augmented Reality Application

An external company (The VR Agency, Dublin, Ireland) was enlisted to design a dedicated AR smartphone application for displaying the nutritional information for the beef lasagne and strawberry yogurt products. The AR application was developed using Vuforia® software (version 10.1) and was compatible with an Android operating system. The AR application supported both visual and auditory content consisting of a 3D pop-up of the front-of-pack traffic light label for each product and a short audio voiceover explaining the respective nutritional information (Supplementary File S1).

2.4. Experimental Design and Procedure

The assessment took place at the sensory science suite at Teagasc Food Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland. Using a between-subject design, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the following three experimental conditions: (1) original packaging (n = 10) (control condition whereby no AR technology was used and participants answered questions based on the original front-of-pack nutrition labelling displayed on the packaging); (2) visual AR (n = 10) (nutritional information for the product was displayed as a 3D pop-up of the front-of-pack traffic light label using AR); and (3) visual and audio AR (n = 10) (nutritional information for the product was displayed as a 3D pop-up of the front-of-pack traffic light label using AR and supplemented with an audio voiceover explaining the respective nutrition label). An overview of the experiment is illustrated in Figure 2. For the two experimental conditions involving AR (i.e., visual AR and visual and audio AR), the front-of-pack nutrition label was replaced with a specific QR code which the participant could scan and experience the assigned information using a dedicated smartphone (Samsung Galaxy, A11) (Figure 3). Due to the novelty of using AR technology for displaying and understanding nutrition labels, participants assigned to the AR conditions participated in a short familiarization session on how to use the AR application.
Within each experimental condition, participants attended two 30 min sessions (one for each product), during which they evaluated the nutritional information of the beef lasagne and strawberry yogurt product and recorded their answers via a questionnaire. The session was counterbalanced for product order effects so that 5 participants assessed the beef lasagne first, while the other 5 participants assessed the strawberry yogurt first. Within each session, to understand whether the provision of nutritional information via the AR tool improved participant understanding of the nutritional value of the product, they were first asked to evaluate the product in the absence of any nutritional information, and thus, the nutritional information on the front of the package was not presented. After viewing the product (without any nutritional information), participants were asked to rate the product for overall healthiness and rate the perceived healthiness of the product in terms of calories, and total fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt contents on a scale of 1 (not healthy at all) to 7 (very healthy).
Following the provision nutritional information via one of the experimental conditions described above (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, or visual and audio AR), participants were asked to rate their perceived healthiness of the product using the same questions and scale as before and were subsequently also asked to rate the following statements on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree): I could easily understand the nutrition label using the AR application; overall, the AR application is a useful way for obtaining information about the nutritional quality of the product; using the AR application did not require much effort; the AR application was eye-catching and memorable; I have a better understanding of the nutritional quality of the beef lasagne after using the AR application; using the AR application was a novel experience; I would use the AR application again in the future again for obtaining information about nutritional quality. For participants in the original packaging condition, the wording of the questions was edited slightly to focus on the ease of reading nutritional information on the packaging, as opposed to using an AR tool.

2.5. Data Analysis

To assess differences between means following the provision of information among the three conditions (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR) regarding consumer perception of healthiness, caloric content, and macronutrient composition of lasagne and yogurt, and the perception of the presentation methods, one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests (Fisher LSD) were conducted. Fisher’s LSD was used as the post hoc test, as only three conditions were examined. Given the exploratory nature of the analysis, aimed at identifying potential trends rather than confirming specific hypotheses, this approach was deemed appropriate [25,26].
To determine differences between means within each condition before and after the provision of information regarding consumer perception of healthiness, caloric content and macronutrient composition of the food products, one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests (Fisher LSD) were carried out. The results are presented using bar charts to clearly illustrate differences in consumer response to questions and to facilitate ease of interpretation.
A two-way ANOVA was applied to assess the significance of variance for the fixed factors, condition and information, as well as their interactions, in relation to consumer perception of healthiness, caloric content, and macronutrient composition of the food products. All the analyses, as well as the descriptive statistics were performed using XLSTAT Premium (Annual version 2024.4.01424) at a significant level of p < 0.05 unless otherwise indicated.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of the Experimental Condition on Consumer Perception of Healthiness, Caloric Content, and Macronutrient Composition

Table 1 presents the mean consumer ratings of overall healthiness, calorie content, and macronutrient composition ratings for lasagne and yogurt across the three different experimental conditions (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR).

3.1.1. Lasagne

For lasagne, no significant differences were observed across the three experimental conditions. Consumers perceived the “overall healthiness” of the lasagne relatively consistently across conditions, ranging from 1.7 to 2.1. Compared to the original packaging (3.0 ± 0.4), perceived “calorie” content was descriptively lower when presented via visual AR (2.2 ± 0.4) or visual and audio AR (2.6 ± 0.4). This suggests that consumers tended to be more aware of lasagnes’ nutritional value when the nutritional information was presented via the original packaging. Regarding perceptions of “total fat”, “saturated fat”, “sugar”, and “salt” contents, no significant differences were observed across the three experimental conditions.
Table 1. Consumer ratings (mean ± SE) of overall healthiness, calorie content, and macronutrient composition of lasagne and yogurt after presenting nutrition information via original packaging, visual AR, or visual and audio AR.
Table 1. Consumer ratings (mean ± SE) of overall healthiness, calorie content, and macronutrient composition of lasagne and yogurt after presenting nutrition information via original packaging, visual AR, or visual and audio AR.
QuestionLasagneYogurt
Original PackagingVisual ARVisual and Audio AROriginal PackagingVisual ARVisual and Audio AR
Overall healthiness2.1 ± 0.31.7 ± 0.32.1 ± 0.33.5 ± 0.43.0 ± 0.43.9 ± 0.4
Calories3.0 ± 0.4 2.2 ± 0.42.6 ± 0.43.7 ± 0.53.0 ± 0.54.2 ± 0.5
Total fat2.0 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.31.6 ± 0.32.6 ± 0.3 b,*3.6 ± 0.3 a3.3 ± 0.3 a,b
Saturated fat1.7 ± 0.21.2 ± 0.21.2 ± 0.21.7 ± 0.32.6 ± 0.32 ± 0.3
Sugar3.8 ± 0.44.0 ± 0.45.0 ± 0.42.4 ± 0.31.8 ± 0.32.5 ±0.3
Salt2.1 ± 0.41.7 ± 0.42.3 ± 0.44.9 ± 0.4 b6.0 ± 0.4 a5.9 ± 0.4 a,b
* within each product, different letters in the same row indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.

3.1.2. Yogurt

For yogurt, perceived “total fat” content was significantly higher when nutritional information was presented via visual AR (3.6 ± 0.3) compared to original packaging (2.6 ± 0.3). A similar trend was observed for visual and audio AR; the “total fat” content was perceived as higher for visual and audio AR compared to original packaging, though the difference was not statistically significant. Regarding the perception of “salt” content, significant differences were found in consumer ratings between original packaging and visual AR; the “salt” content was perceived as being significantly higher when the nutritional information was presented through visual AR compared to original packaging, but no differences were observed between visual and audio AR and the other two experimental conditions.

3.2. Consumer Perception of the AR Tools

Figure 4 shows the mean values of how consumers responded to the different questions with respect to the method of presentation (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, or visual and audio AR) used. For lasagne, when nutritional information was presented via the original packaging, consumers rated the experience as significantly less “memorable” and “novel”. No significant differences were observed for the other attributes assessed (Figure 4a). Different observations were found for yogurt (Figure 4b). For yogurt, the visual AR and visual and audio AR presentation methods received significantly higher ratings for both “easily understand” and “novel” attributes than the original packaging. Additionally, consumers reported that they had a significantly “better understanding” of nutritional information and found it more “memorable” when presented via visual AR compared to the original packaging; however, this was not observed when presented via the visual and audio AR tool.

3.3. Effect of the Provision of Nutritional Information on Consumer Perception of Healthiness, Caloric Content, and Macronutrient Composition of Products

Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7, illustrate the effects of information provision on consumer perceptions of healthiness of lasagne and yogurt in terms of overall healthiness, calories, and macronutrient composition.

3.3.1. Original Packaging

For lasagne, presenting nutritional information on the original packaging significantly altered perceptions of overall healthiness, as well as the perceived healthiness of its total fat and saturated fat content, compared to before the information was provided. For yogurt, significant differences were observed in perceived healthiness related to total fat, saturated fat, and sugar content. (Figure 5a,b).
Mti 09 00097 g005
Figure 5. Mean (±SD) scores for consumer perceptions of the healthiness of (a) lasagne and (b) yogurt before and after provision of nutritional information when using the original packaging. Perceptions were assessed for Q1: overall healthiness, Q2: calories, Q3: total fat, Q4: saturated fat, Q5: sugar, and Q6: salt. Within each graph and for each question, different letters denote significant differences between pre- and post-information scores (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.
Figure 5. Mean (±SD) scores for consumer perceptions of the healthiness of (a) lasagne and (b) yogurt before and after provision of nutritional information when using the original packaging. Perceptions were assessed for Q1: overall healthiness, Q2: calories, Q3: total fat, Q4: saturated fat, Q5: sugar, and Q6: salt. Within each graph and for each question, different letters denote significant differences between pre- and post-information scores (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.
Mti 09 00097 g005

3.3.2. Visual AR

A significant reduction in perceived healthiness of the lasagne and yogurt in terms of saturated fat content was observed when nutritional information was presented via visual AR (Figure 6a,b). Additionally, for yogurt perceived healthiness of the calorie content was significantly lower following the provision of nutritional information (Figure 6b). No significant differences were observed for the remaining macronutrients assessed.
Mti 09 00097 g006
Figure 6. Mean (±SD) scores for consumer perceptions of the healthiness of (a) lasagne and (b) yogurt before and after provision of nutritional information when using the visual AR tool. Perceptions were assessed for Q1: overall healthiness, Q2: calories, Q3: total fat, Q4: saturated fat, Q5: sugar, and Q6: salt. Within each graph and for each question, different letters denote significant differences between pre- and post-information scores (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.
Figure 6. Mean (±SD) scores for consumer perceptions of the healthiness of (a) lasagne and (b) yogurt before and after provision of nutritional information when using the visual AR tool. Perceptions were assessed for Q1: overall healthiness, Q2: calories, Q3: total fat, Q4: saturated fat, Q5: sugar, and Q6: salt. Within each graph and for each question, different letters denote significant differences between pre- and post-information scores (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.
Mti 09 00097 g006

3.3.3. Visual and Audio AR

For both lasagne and yogurt, when nutritional information was presented via in visual and audio AR format, there was a significant reduction in the perceived healthiness of each product in terms of “saturated fat”. For lasagne, it was perceived as significantly healthier in terms of “sugar” content following the provision of nutritional information. Interestingly, apart from sugar content, the provision of information negatively affected the overall perception of healthiness across all attributes assessed. Sugar content was the only attribute for which perceived healthiness significantly increased, specifically for lasagne, when the information was delivered through the visual and auditory AR format (Figure 7a,b).
Mti 09 00097 g007
Figure 7. Mean (±SD) scores for consumer perceptions of the healthiness of (a) lasagne and (b) yogurt before and after provision of nutritional information when using the visual and audio AR tool. Perceptions were assessed for Q1: overall healthiness, Q2: calories, Q3: total fat, Q4: saturated fat, Q5: sugar, and Q6: salt. Within each graph and for each question, different letters denote significant differences between pre- and post-information scores (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.
Figure 7. Mean (±SD) scores for consumer perceptions of the healthiness of (a) lasagne and (b) yogurt before and after provision of nutritional information when using the visual and audio AR tool. Perceptions were assessed for Q1: overall healthiness, Q2: calories, Q3: total fat, Q4: saturated fat, Q5: sugar, and Q6: salt. Within each graph and for each question, different letters denote significant differences between pre- and post-information scores (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 = not at all healthy and 7 = very healthy.
Mti 09 00097 g007

3.4. The Effect of Experimental Condition, Information Provision, and Their Interaction on Consumer Ratings of Overall Healthiness, Calorie Content, and Macronutrient Composition

To examine the effects of the experimental condition (i.e., the method used to present the nutritional information) and the information itself, a Type III Sum of Squares analysis was conducted. Results showed that not all sources of variation were significant across the health-related attributes (Table 2). Overall, the provision of information accounted for the largest proportion of the variance in most cases, though its effect was not always significant.
For lasagne, information had a significant effect on consumer ratings of overall healthiness, as well as on perceived healthiness in terms of caloric, total fat, saturated fat, and sugar contents, with contributions varying from 41.1 to 93.7%. Condition (i.e. the presentation format) explained the highest proportion of variance only for perceived healthiness in terms of calories (92.5%), although this effect was not significant. Across the other attributes, condition accounted for between 3.7% and 40.5% of the variance. The interaction between condition and information contributed comparatively little (1.9% to 18.4%), with no significant effects observed.
For yogurt, information explained the greatest proportion of variance in ratings of overall healthiness (<0.05) calorie content (<0.001), and “saturated fat” content (<0.001), varying from 55.9 to 91.7%. In contrast, ratings of total fat and salt contents were most strongly influenced by the condition x information interaction (49.7 and 81.9%, respectively). For perceived healthiness in terms of sugar content, condition alone accounted for the highest proportion of variance (55.2%), with a significant effect (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

The results of this study highlight consumer perception of the overall healthiness, and healthiness of the calorie content, and macronutrient composition, both among the different methods used to present nutritional information (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, or visual and audio AR) and between the two products (i.e., lasagne and yogurt). While information presented through original packaging was more effective in changing consumer perceptions, the AR tools were found to be more “novel”, “easier or better to understand”, and “memorable”. The provision of nutritional information had a greater impact on yogurt perception compared to lasagne. These findings are further discussed below.

4.1. Consumers Were More Engaged with AR Tools

The data on consumer perceptions of nutritional information presentation indicate a clear preference for AR tools over traditional packaging for both lasagne and yogurt. Visual AR and visual-plus-audio AR were consistently rated as “easier to understand” and more effective in providing a “better understanding” of nutritional information, suggesting that the interactive and visual features of AR enhanced user engagement. Visual AR, in particular, stood out for its “memorability” and “novelty”, factors that are critical for consumer engagement and brand differentiation [27]. The higher ratings in these categories, especially for visual AR, suggest that consumers may perceive these tools as more engaging, which may lead to improved recall and stronger product preference.
The use of both visual AR and visual and audio AR formats, appeared to influence the perception of lasagne and yogurt differently compared to traditional original packaging. For lasagne, AR tools generally made consumers more aware of “saturated fat” and “sugar” contents, particularly using the visual and audio AR tool. For yogurt, visual and audio AR enhanced the perceptions of “overall healthiness” and “calories”, while visual AR highlighted “total fat” and “salt” contents more effectively. These findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that the clarity and visibility of nutritional information play a crucial role in consumer decision-making, and that AR technology can enhance both [28].
Digital food label interventions have been shown to encourage consumers to choose products of higher nutritional quality [29]. Supporting the findings presented here, a recent study demonstrated that a smartphone application, which scanned labels using optical character recognition and applied the FDA’s 5–20 rule to assess nutrient levels, significantly improved consumer decision-making when combined with AR visualization [30]. In that study, 91% of participants made healthier selections using the app, compared to only 45% without it [30]. Similarly, another study introduced a mobile AR application to present nutrition information from labels on real packaged foods, further confirming the effectiveness of AR in enhancing consumer understanding of nutritional information [31].
The use of visual and audio AR to deliver nutritional information aligns with findings by Ares et al. (2016), who showed that more engaging and interactive presentation formats can enhance both understanding and retention of nutritional information [32]. Previous research has demonstrated that traffic light labeling requires less processing time than monochromatic alternatives, while simultaneously leading to higher consumer perceptions of product healthiness [33]. In addition, studies of eye-tracking and healthiness ratings highlight the effectiveness of interactive packaging in drawing consumer attention [34]. Similarly, digital Nutri-Score labels have been shown to increase consumer focus on the nutritional quality of foods during product selection [29].
The use of AR in food labeling offers a promising approach to better inform consumers and guide healthier dietary choices. The differences between the visual AR and visual and audio AR tools indicate that the type of AR application can have a varied impact on consumer perception, an important consideration for future research and implementation in nutritional labeling. Overall, the preference for AR methods suggests that integrating AR into product packaging can enhance consumer experience by making information more accessible, engaging, and easier to understand.

4.2. The Original Packaging Remains the Most Effective Tool for Changing Perceptions

In terms of consumer perceptions of overall healthiness, calories, and macronutrient composition, products presented in their original packaging consistently received lower ratings—particularly in the categories of “memorability,” “better understanding,” and “novelty.” This suggests that traditional packaging may be less effective at engaging consumers compared to AR tools. However, these differences were not reflected in the results regarding the effectiveness of the different methods in changing consumer perceptions.
When comparing original packaging with the two AR tools, the former appeared to influence product perception to a greater extent for both lasagne and yogurt, showing significant differences in three health related attributes before and after the provision of nutritional information. In contrast, the AR tools produced significant differences in only one or two attributes, depending on the product. This suggests that the visual AR and visual and audio AR tools may be less effective than original packaging, possibly due to consumer familiarity with traditional formats.
In the present study, however, the largest contribution to variance across most evaluated traits was attributed to the provision of nutritional information itself, rather than the method of presentation. This indicates that the content of the information—regardless of delivery format—plays a central role in shaping consumer perceptions of healthiness, while the presentation method has only a moderate influence. Supporting this, a study on biscuits made with different oil sources found no differences in perceived healthiness between evaluations based solely on the label and evaluations that included both the label and the product, suggesting that judgments were driven primarily by label information rather than hedonic characteristics [35]. Conversely, other research has reported that nutrition labels may have limited influence on perceptions of healthiness for certain foods, such as chocolate and cereal bars [36].
Future applications of AR for nutritional information delivery could benefit from incorporating more interactive features to enhance user engagement and educational value. While the present study focused on relatively simple visual and auditory content, future developments may enrich the AR experience through touch-based interactions or gesture control. Such features would enable users to actively explore nutritional information, creating a more personalized and dynamic experience. For example, users could interact with different food items in a virtual environment and receive tailored feedback based on their selections. Gesture-based navigation or touch-enabled menus could further encourage deeper exploration and improve retention of nutritional information. These advancements would not only foster greater engagement but also provide a more immersive and informative experience, ultimately increasing the effectiveness of AR in supporting healthier food choices.

4.3. Product Differences

Previous research has shown that traffic light nutritional labels are most effective when communicating the nutritional quality of products perceived as “moderately” or “ambiguously” healthy, rather than those already widely regarded as healthy or unhealthy [37,38]. In the present study, providing nutritional information with the visual AR tool incorporating traffic lights resulted in significant differences in perception of two health related attributes for yogurt, but only one for lasagne. This may reflect the role of product health perceptions: while colored nutrient labels can draw consumer attention and reduce perceived healthiness for some foods, they have less impact on products generally viewed as clearly unhealthy [39]. Yogurt is typically regarded as a healthy food, whereas lasagne is often considered unhealthy, which may explain the difference in outcomes. However, other studies have reported that front-of-pack labeling schemes, including the traffic light system, can improve overall perceptions of food healthfulness [40].
Perceived healthiness of yogurt in relation to its “saturated fat” content was rated significantly lower across all conditions. This may be explained by consumer expectations: because yogurt is generally associated with nutritional value, participants may not anticipate it to contain substantial amounts of saturated fat, leading to lower ratings. Previous research has shown that consumers often underestimate the healthiness of milk and yogurt while overestimating that of butter and cheese [41]. Similarly, they tend to underestimate the caloric content of foods considered “healthy” compared to those perceived as “unhealthy” [42]. Familiarity is another important factor, as consumers are more likely to perceive a product as healthy if it is familiar to them, suggesting an avenue for future research [41]. More broadly, consumer perceptions of food healthiness are influenced by seven key categories: the communicated information, consumer knowledge of specific products, the product category, packaging shape and color, product ingredients, organic origin, and sensory attributes [41,43].

4.4. Limitations

This pilot study explored consumer perception of using AR tools to display and interpret nutritional labels. One limitation of the study is the small sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Due to the resource-intensive nature of AR research, the number of participants was limited. Future studies should aim to include a larger and more diverse sample to enhance statistical power and ensure broader applicability of the results across different user groups and contexts.
A second limitation of the present study is the absence of an audio-only condition. While the visual AR and combined visual–audio AR formats provided valuable insights into how multimodal cues influence consumer perceptions and understanding of nutrition labels, the lack of an audio-only format makes it difficult to determine the contribution of auditory cues. Including an audio-only condition would have allowed for a clearer assessment of the relative engagement and effectiveness of visual AR cues compared with auditory cues alone. Future research could incorporate this condition to better isolate the effects of each sensory modality and inform the design of AR tools for nutrition communication.

4.5. Further Recommendations and Considerations

As noted above, the AR tools used in this study could be criticized for delivering information only through static visual content and audio, lacking the interactive or multimedia features that AR can offer. This limited use could have contributed to lukewarm responses from consumers, who may not have perceived sufficient value in the experience. While this limitation cannot be addressed retrospectively, future applications would benefit from integrating more dynamic and engaging features. For instance, an AR tool developed to help users interpret carbohydrate-related information on packaged foods used visual overlays to identify relevant sections of the label and explain portion sizes. This approach significantly improved consumers’ understanding and satisfaction [31]. Similarly, an AR tool that highlighted health attributes during grocery shopping, through overlay tags and colour-coded recommendations, has been shown to reduce the time needed to identify healthier options and improve consumers’ ability to distinguish between recommended and non-recommended products [44]. Despite these benefits, implementing AR tools in practice can pose challenges. For example, smartphone-based AR systems, such as the one used in this study, while widely accessible, require users to hold their devices throughout the interaction. This can lead to a diminished user experience due to camera distortions and user fatigue [1].
More sophisticated headset-based AR systems have also been proposed. Such systems can allow users to point at real food items and receive recipe suggestions along with step-by-step video tutorials. Such systems have been associated with high user satisfaction and a strong willingness to recommend the tool to others [45]. Nonetheless, head-mounted AR devices come with their own limitations, including reliance on wireless connectivity, limited battery life, and challenges related to food item recognition and localisation in uncontrolled environments [46].
Looking forward, there is a growing consensus that AR tools should move beyond simply presenting nutritional information. Instead, they should encompass the entire food journey, from the origin of ingredients and production methods to their final presentation in stores or restaurants, providing consumers with a comprehensive view of food systems [47]. With thoughtful design, rigorous evaluation, and features that prioritize consumer needs, AR has the potential to become a transformative tool for improving nutrition communication and supporting healthier food choices.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the impact of AR tools, specifically those employing visual and auditory formats, on consumers’ perception and comprehension of nutritional labels for two commercially available food products. A key contribution of this research is its novel application of auditory AR in the context of food labelling, an area that remains largely underexplored in both academic literature and industry practice. By examining consumer responses to different methods of information delivery, this study provides important insights into how the presentation format influences perceptions of healthiness, caloric content, and macronutrient composition.
While nutritional information presented via original packaging proved most effective in influencing consumer perceptions, the AR-based tools were perceived as more memorable, novel, and easier to understand. These attributes are particularly important in enhancing consumer engagement and suggest that AR technologies hold strong potential as complementary tools for nutrition communication.
As AR becomes increasingly integrated into consumer’s daily experiences and they become more familiar with these technologies, the potential to transform food-related decision-making grows. By embedding interactive and multisensory content into food labels, AR tools could significantly enhance consumer literacy around nutrition, food quality, safety, and sustainability. Such applications have promising implications for public health, as they may empower individuals to make better informed, healthier dietary choices.
This pilot study offers valuable insights into the use of AR tools for nutrition labelling and communication. However, further research involving larger and more diverse sample of consumers is necessary to validate and extend these findings. Future studies could also explore the incorporation of more advanced and interactive AR features, such as personalized recommendations or real-time feedback, to better understand their potential in engaging users and influencing dietary behaviour. These enhanced applications may offer even greater opportunities to support consumer education and drive meaningful improvements in public health outcomes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/mti9090097/s1. File S1: Visual and audio AR experimental condition: Script for voiceover for beef lasagne and strawberry yogurt.

Author Contributions

C.B. and S.M. are joint first authors and contributed equally to this paper. Conceptualization, E.C. and C.B.; methodology, E.C. and C.B.; formal analysis, S.M.; investigation, C.B.; resources, E.C.; data curation, S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B. and S.M.; writing—review and editing, E.C.; visualization, S.M.; supervision, E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in strict compliance with the research guidelines of Teagasc, Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Republic of Ireland, including proper handling of personal information. All participants were recruited from the Teagasc’s internal email list. The study design was explained to the participants in advance of recruitment, and they were informed that no food consumption would be involved and that participation carried minimal risk. Before beginning the trial, all participants read an information sheet and signed a consent form. A research ethics committee was not involved, as the study fell within the scope of standard consumer testing, without a tasting component, or any other intervention, that could pose any risk. Participants engaged only in a regular task they would typically perform in their daily lives. We believe that all ethical considerations were appropriately addressed.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the participants who volunteered their time for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chai, J.J.K.; O’Sullivan, C.; Gowen, A.A.; Rooney, B.; Xu, J.L. Augmented/Mixed Reality Technologies for Food: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 124, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Beck, D.E.; Crandall, P.G.; O’Bryan, C.A.; Shabatura, J.C. Taking Food Safety to the next Level—An Augmented Reality Solution. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016, 19, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liberty, J.T.; Sun, S.; Kucha, C.; Adedeji, A.A.; Agidi, G.; Ngadi, M.O. Augmented Reality for Food Quality Assessment: Bridging the Physical and Digital Worlds. J. Food Eng. 2024, 367, 111893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abou El-Magd, L.M.; Abdelnapi, N.M.M.; Darwish, A.; Hassanien, A.E. A Proposed Metaverse Framework for Food Security Based-IoT Network and Machine Learning. In The Future of Metaverse in the Virtual Era and Physical World; Hassanien, A.E., Darwish, A., Torky, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 137–153. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aisala, H.; Rantala, J.; Vanhatalo, S.; Nikinmaa, M.; Pennanen, K.; Raisamo, R.; Sözer, N. Augmentation of Perceived Sweetness in Sugar Reduced Cakes by Local Odor Display. In Proceedings of the ICMI ′20 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Virtual, 25–29 October 2020; pp. 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Balbin, J.R. Augmented Reality Aided Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Based on Taste-Induced Facial Expression Recognition Using AFFDEX Software Developer’s Kit. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 28–30 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yulia, C.; Hasbullah, H.; Nikmawati, E.E.; Mubaroq, S.R.; Abdullah, C.U.; Widiaty, I. Augmented Reality of Traditional Food for Nutrition Education. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2018), Bandung, Indonesia, 18 April 2018; Volume 16001, pp. 2–5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zufliki, N.F.A.; Asma, A.; Yusof, H.M.; Khairil-Shazmin, K.; Zakaria, N.S.; Mustafa, M.; Mhd Jalil, A.M. Evaluation of a Voluntary Augmented Reality Nutrition Menu Labelling Application (Nutrilabelapps©) Usage in a University Café: A Cross-Sectional Study in Terengganu, Malaysia. Food Res. Int. 2020, 4, 2296–2305. [Google Scholar]
  9. Torrico, D.D.; Sharma, C.; Dong, W.; Fuentes, S.; Gonzalez Viejo, C.; Dunshea, F.R. Virtual Reality Environments on the Sensory Acceptability and Emotional Responses of No- and Full-Sugar Chocolate. LWT 2021, 137, 110383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Crofton, E.C.; Botinestean, C.; Fenelon, M.; Gallagher, E. Potential Applications for Virtual and Augmented Reality Technologies in Sensory Science. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 56, 102178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dong, Y.; Sharma, C.; Mehta, A.; Torrico, D.D. Application of Augmented Reality in the Sensory Evaluation of Yogurts. Fermentation 2021, 7, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gutiérrez, F.; Htun, N.N.; Charleer, S.; de Croon, R.; Verbert, K. Designing Augmented Reality Applications for Personal Health Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science HICSS 2019, Maui, HI, USA, 8–11 January 2019; pp. 1738–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Almousa, N.; Uchendu, A. Augmented Reality Applications in Food and Drink. In Internet of Things and Big Data Analytics Toward Next-Generation Intelligence; Rana, H.S., Sharma, P.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 119–134. [Google Scholar]
  14. Karthika, S.; Varsha, G.; Deepika, R. AR Guide for Food Allergic Consumers. Adv. Parallel Comput. 2021, 38, 548–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Papagiannidis, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Alamanos, E. Augmented Reality Technologies and Food Retailers: The Past, Present, and Future. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 39, 226–237. [Google Scholar]
  16. Saptadi, S.; Purnamasari, A. Design of Augmented Reality Application for Cooking and Recipes Using Android. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1528, 012095. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamdy, H.F.; Al Khater, A.M.; El Saddik, A. Augmented Reality and Internet of Things for Food Quality Assurance. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Munich, Germany, 16–20 October 2018; pp. 236–243. [Google Scholar]
  18. Scannell, M.J. Tasting the Future: Augmented Reality, Food and Marketing. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2279–2289. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, H.; Sun, M.; Luo, Y.; Li, L.; Zhu, Z. NutriAR: Augmented Reality for Nutritional Food Recognition. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, Limassol, Cyprus, 8–12 April 2019; pp. 294–300. [Google Scholar]
  20. Silva, B.M.; Magalhães, L.; Rodrigues, J.J. An Augmented Reality Framework for Personalized Nutritional Information Delivery. Sensors 2020, 20, 982. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, D.; Liu, X.; Ren, X.; Chen, Z.; Xu, C. ARFood: Augmented Reality Based Personalized Food Recommendation System. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, Xi’an, China, 24–26 May 2019; pp. 38–42. [Google Scholar]
  22. Camacho, S.; Guevara, R.C. Augmented Reality and Simulation in Dietetics Education. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2014, 46, S127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pini, V.; Orso, V.; Pluchino, P.; Gamberini, L. Augmented Grocery Shopping: Fostering Healthier Food Purchases through AR. Virtual Real. 2023, 27, 2117–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Escárcega-Centeno, D.; Hérnandez-Briones, A.; Ochoa-Ortiz, E.; Gutiérrez-Gómez, Y. Augmented-Sugar Intake: A Mobile Application to Teach Population about Sugar Sweetened Beverages. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hilton, A.; Armstrong, R.A. Statnote 6: Post-Hoc ANOVA Tests. 2006, pp. 34–36. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46284798_Statnote_6_post-hoc_ANOVA_tests (accessed on 4 February 2025).
  26. Williams, L.; Abdi, H. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test. In Encyclopedia of Research Design; Salkind, N., Ed.; Sage: Thousands Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 2–6. [Google Scholar]
  27. Siegrist, M.; Leins-Hess, R.; Keller, C. Which Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label Is the Most Efficient One? The Results of an Eye-Tracker Study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bialkova, S.; van Trijp, H. What Determines Consumer Attention to Nutrition Labels? Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 1042–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fuchs, K.L.; Lian, J.; Michels, L.; Mayer, S.; Toniato, E.; Tiefenbeck, V. Effects of Digital Food Labels on Healthy Food Choices in Online Grocery Shopping. Nutrients 2022, 12, 2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jain, P.; Djamasbi, S. Transforming User Experience of Nutrition Facts Label—An Exploratory Service Innovation Study. In Proceedings of the HCI in Business, Government and Organizations, Orlando, FL, USA, 26–31 July 2019; pp. 225–237. [Google Scholar]
  31. Juan, M.; Charco, J.L.; García-garcía, I.; Mollá, R. An Augmented Reality App to Learn to Interpret the Nutritional Information on Labels of Real Packaged Foods. Front. Comput. Sci. 2019, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ares, G.; Vidal, L.; Allegue, G.; Giménez, A.; Bandeira, E.; Moratorio, X.; Molina, V.; Curutchet, M.R. Consumers’ Conceptualization of Ultra-Processed Foods. Appetite 2016, 105, 611–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mušura, A.; Stojnić, B.; Ban, D. Effects of Different Nutrition Labels on Visual Attention and Accuracy of Nutritional Quality Perception—Results of an Experimental Eye-Tracking Study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jones, G.; Richardson, M. An Objective Examination of Consumer Perception of Nutrition Information Based on Healthiness Ratings and Eye Movements. Public Health Nutr. 2007, 10, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tarancón, P.; Sanz, T.; Fiszman, S.; Tárrega, A. Consumers ’ Hedonic Expectations and Perception of the Healthiness of Biscuits Made with Olive Oil or Sun Fl Ower Oil. FRIN 2014, 55, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vasiljevic, M.; Pechey, R.; Marteau, T.M. Making Food Labels Social: The Impact of Colour of Nutritional Labels and Injunctive Norms on Perceptions and Choice of Snack Foods. Appetite 2015, 91, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bandeira, L.M.; Toral, N.; Gubert, M.B. Performance and Perception on Front-of-Package Nutritional Labeling Models in Brazil. Rev. Saúde Pública 2021, 51, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Acton, R.B.; Vanderlee, L.; Hammond, D. In Fluence of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels on Beverage Healthiness Perceptions: Results from a Randomized Experiment. Prev. Med. 2018, 115, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nyilasy, G.; Lei, J.; Nagpal, A.; Tan, J. Short Communication Colour Correct: The Interactive Effects of Food Label Nutrition Colouring Schemes and Food Category Healthiness on Health Perceptions. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 2122–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Machín, L.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Curutchet, M.R.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Does Front-of-Pack Nutrition Information Improve Consumer Ability to Make Healthful Choices? Performance of Warnings and the Traffic Light System in a Simulated Shopping Experiment. Appetite 2018, 121, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Orquin, J. A Brunswik Lens Model of Consumer Health Judgments of Packaged Foods. J. Consum. Behav. 2014, 13, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Larkin, D.; Martin, C.R. Caloric Estimation of Healthy and Unhealthy Foods in Normal-Weight, Overweight and Obese Participants. Eat. Behav. 2016, 23, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Plasek, B.; Temesi, Á. Factors That Influence the Perceived Healthiness of Food—Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ahn, J.; Williamson, J.; Gartrell, M.; Han, R.; Lv, Q.; Mishra, S. Supporting Healthy Grocery Shopping via Mobile Augmented Reality. ACM Trans. Multimed. Comput. Commun. Appl. 2015, 12, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Majil, I.; Yang, M.T.; Yang, S. Augmented Reality Based Interactive Cooking Guide. Sensors 2022, 22, 8290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xie, J.; Chai, J.J.K.; O’Sullivan, C.; Xu, J.L. Trends of Augmented Reality for Agri-Food Applications. Sensors 2022, 22, 8333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Styliaras, G.D. Augmented Reality in Food Promotion and Analysis: Review and Potentials. Digital 2021, 1, 216–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mti 09 00097 g001
Figure 1. Front-of-pack nutritional label for (a) beef lasagne and (b) strawberry yogurt.
Figure 1. Front-of-pack nutritional label for (a) beef lasagne and (b) strawberry yogurt.
Mti 09 00097 g001
Mti 09 00097 g002
Figure 2. Overview of flow of experiment.
Figure 2. Overview of flow of experiment.
Mti 09 00097 g002
Mti 09 00097 g003
Figure 3. AR nutritional label of beef lasagne viewed from the consumer’s perspective.
Figure 3. AR nutritional label of beef lasagne viewed from the consumer’s perspective.
Mti 09 00097 g003
Mti 09 00097 g004
Figure 4. Consumer responses (mean ± SE) to questions with respect to their experience in understanding nutritional information when presented through the original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR for lasagne (a) and yogurt (b). Within each graph and question, different letters indicate significant differences among the three presentation methods (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree).
Figure 4. Consumer responses (mean ± SE) to questions with respect to their experience in understanding nutritional information when presented through the original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR for lasagne (a) and yogurt (b). Within each graph and question, different letters indicate significant differences among the three presentation methods (p < 0.05). Data were collected on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree).
Mti 09 00097 g004
Table 2. Type III Sum of Squares analysis to assess the significance of variance for the fixed factors, condition, information, and condition by information, in relation to consumer ratings of overall healthiness, and healthiness in terms of caloric content, and macronutrient composition of lasagne and yogurt. Condition refers to the method the nutritional information was presented through (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR).
Table 2. Type III Sum of Squares analysis to assess the significance of variance for the fixed factors, condition, information, and condition by information, in relation to consumer ratings of overall healthiness, and healthiness in terms of caloric content, and macronutrient composition of lasagne and yogurt. Condition refers to the method the nutritional information was presented through (i.e., original packaging, visual AR, and visual and audio AR).
OverallCaloriesTotal FatSat FatSugarSalt
LasagneSS%SSSS%SSSS%SSSS%SSSS%SSSS%SS
Condition29.66.092.54.930.83.63.71.040.56.634.01.6
Information64.513.1 ***5.70.363.27.4 **93.725.4 **41.16.7 *51.12.4
Condition by Information5.91.21.90.16.00.72.60.718.43.014.90.7
Yogurt
Condition23.43.420.42.81.20.21.30.955.210.1 *7.60.8
Information55.98.1 *43.86.049.18.1 *91.764.1 ***29.55.4 *10.51.1
Condition by Information20.73.035.84.949.78.2 *7.04.915.32.881.98.6 ***
*** <0.001; ** <0.01; * <0.05. SS: Sum of Squares.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Botinestean, C.; Melios, S.; Crofton, E. Exploring Consumer Perception of Augmented Reality (AR) Tools for Displaying and Understanding Nutrition Labels: A Pilot Study. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090097

AMA Style

Botinestean C, Melios S, Crofton E. Exploring Consumer Perception of Augmented Reality (AR) Tools for Displaying and Understanding Nutrition Labels: A Pilot Study. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2025; 9(9):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Botinestean, Cristina, Stergios Melios, and Emily Crofton. 2025. "Exploring Consumer Perception of Augmented Reality (AR) Tools for Displaying and Understanding Nutrition Labels: A Pilot Study" Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 9, no. 9: 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090097

APA Style

Botinestean, C., Melios, S., & Crofton, E. (2025). Exploring Consumer Perception of Augmented Reality (AR) Tools for Displaying and Understanding Nutrition Labels: A Pilot Study. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(9), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090097

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop