Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27503112›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016

Feasibility of a walking virtual reality system for rehabilitation: objective and subjective parameters.

Adrián Borrego, Jorge Latorre, Roberto Llorens, Mariano Alcañiz, Enrique Noé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Adrián BorregoNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Jorge LatorreNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Roberto LlorensNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain. rllorens@lableni.com.
Mariano AlcañizNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Enrique NoéServicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA, Fundación Hospitales NISA, Río Tajo 1, 46011, Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEven though virtual reality (VR) is increasingly used in rehabilitation, the implementation of walking navigation in VR still poses a technological challenge for current motion tracking systems. Different metaphors simulate locomotion without involving real gait kinematics, which can affect presence, orientation, spatial memory and cognition, and even performance. All these factors can dissuade their use in rehabilitation. We hypothesize that a marker-based head tracking solution would allow walking in VR with high sense of presence and without causing sickness. The objectives of this study were to determine the accuracy, the jitter, and the lag of the tracking system and its elicited sickness and presence in comparison of a CAVE system.

methodsThe accuracy and the jitter around the working area at three different heights and the lag of the head tracking system were analyzed. In addition, 47 healthy subjects completed a search task that involved navigation in the walking VR system and in the CAVE system. Navigation was enabled by natural locomotion in the walking VR system and through a specific device in the CAVE system. An HMD was used as display in the walking VR system. After interacting with each system, subjects rated their sickness in a seven-point scale and their presence in the Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire and a modified version of the Presence Questionnaire.

resultsBetter performance was registered at higher heights, where accuracy was less than 0.6 cm and the jitter was about 6 mm. The lag of the system was 120 ms. Participants reported that both systems caused similar low levels of sickness (about 2.4 over 7). However, ratings showed that the walking VR system elicited higher sense of presence than the CAVE system in both the Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire (17.6 ± 0.3 vs 14.6 ± 0.6 over 21, respectively) and the modified Presence Questionnaire (107.4 ± 2.0 vs 93.5 ± 3.2 over 147, respectively).

conclusionsThe marker-based solution provided accurate, robust, and fast head tracking to allow navigation in the VR system by walking without causing relevant sickness and promoting higher sense of presence than CAVE systems, thus enabling natural walking in full-scale environments, which can enhance the ecological validity of VR-based rehabilitation applications.

Indexed as

WalkingAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaCognitionFemaleGaitHumansMaleMotion SicknessOrientationRehabilitationVirtual Reality Exposure TherapyEcological validityMotion trackingPresenceVirtual realityWalking

Identifiers

PMID27503112
PMCPMC4977644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.