Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology adopted by brands to innovate packaging and improve communication with consumers. Companies integrate AR features into their packaging, choosing between different approaches. However, it is still unclear how different AR typologies can influence consumers’ perceptions during the interaction. For this purpose, this exploratory study aims to analyze the differences between two types of AR—static vs. immersive—applied to packaging, evaluating their impact and effectiveness on consumers. A within-subjects design, on a sample of 20 participants, was employed using neuroscientific techniques (electroencephalography, heart rate, and skin conductance) to explore the cognitive and emotional engagement based on the AR interaction, as well as self-report measures (Augmented Reality Immersion, Perceived Informativeness and Authenticity). Neurophysiological findings indicated that the immersive AR application elicited a greater emotional and partially cognitive engagement, as well as a higher perceived immersion, according to self-reports. The study’s findings offer a deeper understanding of how consumers’ perceptions can change in response to different types of AR content. Although AR is not yet widely accessible as a marketing tool for brands, its growing technological feasibility makes it relevant to know its potential effects on consumers. Thus, this study will offer useful insights for companies to direct their investments toward AR applications in marketing campaigns.

Introduction: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is frequently associated with a range of neurological, cognitive and psychological issues, presenting significant challenges to patients’ Quality of Life (QoL). Among non-invasive neuromodulation techniques, transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) is emerging as a potential approach for symptom management in neurological conditions. However, the effects of tsDCS on MS remain poorly explored. Thus, this preliminary study aimed to evaluate the effects of tsDCS on MS symptomatology, focusing on cognitive and psychological variables. Methods: Six patients with MS were recruited for a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind crossover study, and received anodal tsDCS or sham stimulation in two separate sessions at least one month apart. Assessment outcomes included cognitive and attentional-executive functions, depressive symptoms, and several QoL components. The tests were administered at baseline (T0), immediately after treatment (T1), one week (T2) and one month (T3) post-treatment. Results: Although protocol-by-time interactions did not reach statistical significance across all measures, protocol-independent improvements over time were observed in various QoL subscales, including Physical Functioning, Role Limitations due to Physical Health, Vitality, Health Distress, and Overall QoL. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that tsDCS is a feasible and well-tolerated intervention in patients with MS, with possible implications for QoL. Given the small sample size and the exploratory nature of this study, further research is needed to clarify whether tsDCS may represent a potentially beneficial non-invasive neuromodulation approach for improving well-being in patients with MS across both physical and mental dimensions.