ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications2021
DO YOUTHS WITH NEUROMOTOR DISORDER AND THEIR THERAPISTS PREFER A MIXED OR VIRTUAL REALITY HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY?
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmented and Mixed Reality Interventions in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Immersive virtual reality rehabilitation after lower limb surgery in paediatric patients.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Virtual Reality as a Therapy Tool for Walking Activities in Pediatric Neurorehabilitation: Usability and User Experience Evaluation.JMIR serious games · 2022Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the usability of 2 head-mounted displays in youths undergoing neurorehabilitation; a mixed reality head-mounted display and a virtual reality head-mounted display.
designObservational cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Thirteen youths (age range 7.8-16.5 years) with neuromotor disorder.
methodsYouths wore a mixed reality or a virtual reality head-mounted display while being verbally guided through a scene with virtual objects. Differences between the 2 systems, regarding usability, user experience, and acceptability, were evaluated using standardized questions for the youths and their therapists. System preferences and symptoms of cybersickness were noted.
resultsBoth head-mounted displays were easy to mount and adjust to the children's heads, but the mixed reality system was unstable in 40% of the youths. Participants stated that they could move naturally with both devices. Object appearance scored higher with the virtual reality system, while therapists rated youths' movement execution and needed additional support in favour of the mixed reality system. Most youths preferred the virtual reality device, mainly due to the more distinct appearance of objects and the objects' richer colours. Therapists' preferences were balanced. Two children reported minimal signs of cybersickness.
conclusionYouths and therapists accepted both systems well, with advantages regarding usability, user experience, and preference for the virtual reality, and acceptability for the mixed reality head-mounted display.
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.