ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016
Feasibility of a walking virtual reality system for rehabilitation: objective and subjective parameters.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Head-Mounted Display-Based Therapies for Adults Post-Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Emotion Recognition in Immersive Virtual Reality: From Statistics to Affective Computing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Pooled it
- Sensing Techniques in Virtual Reality for Human Interaction: A Bibliometric Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Reduced field of view alters scanning behaviour.Virtual reality · 2025Article
- Investigating the Effectiveness of a Virtual-Reality-Based Mindfulness Intervention on Internet Gaming Disorder.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Wearable Mixed Reality Platform to Augment Overground Walking: A Feasibility Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Development and Calibration of an Eye-Tracking Fixation Identification Algorithm for Immersive Virtual Reality.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Neurorehabilitation of Spatial Memory Using Virtual Environments: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Navigating Virtual Environments Using Leg Poses and Smartphone Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Walking with head-mounted virtual and augmented reality devices: Effects on position control and gait biomechanics.PloS one · 2019Article
- Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- The Clinical Utility of Virtual Reality in Neurorehabilitation: A Systematic Review.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2018Review
- The Past, Present, and Future of Virtual and Augmented Reality Research: A Network and Cluster Analysis of the Literature.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- A Novel Integrating Virtual Reality Approach for the Assessment of the Attachment Behavioral System.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Global trends and hotspots in research on extended reality in sports: A bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2021.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.