ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022
Naturalistic visualization of reaching movements using head-mounted displays improves movement quality compared to conventional computer screens and proves high usability.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic arm training in neurorehabilitation enhanced by augmented reality - a usability and feasibility study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Trial
- Towards personalized immersive virtual reality neurorehabilitation: a human-centered design.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Improving Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment via Cognitive and Motor Dual Task Gait Training: Potential Mechanisms and Clinical Value.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Review
- A Local Training Program to Increase Awareness of Emerging Extended Reality Technologies Among Health Care Professionals: Development Study.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2025Article
- Enhancing stroke rehabilitation with whole-hand haptic rendering: development and clinical usability evaluation of a novel upper-limb rehabilitation device.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of the Combined Use of a Brain-Machine Interface System and Virtual Reality as a Therapeutic Approach in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of Smoothness, Movement Speed and Trajectory during Reaching Movements in Real and Virtual Spaces Using a Head-Mounted Display.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Eye movement characteristics in a mental rotation task presented in virtual reality.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe relearning of movements after brain injury can be optimized by providing intensive, meaningful, and motivating training using virtual reality (VR). However, most current solutions use two-dimensional (2D) screens, where patients interact via symbolic representations of their limbs (e.g., a cursor). These 2D screens lack depth cues, potentially deteriorating movement quality and increasing cognitive load. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) have great potential to provide naturalistic movement visualization by incorporating improved depth cues, reduce visuospatial transformations by rendering movements in the space where they are performed, and preserve eye-hand coordination by showing an avatar-with immersive VR (IVR)-or the user's real body-with augmented reality (AR). However, elderly populations might not find these novel technologies usable, hampering potential motor and cognitive benefits.
methodsWe compared movement quality, cognitive load, motivation, and system usability in twenty elderly participants (>59 years old) while performing a dual motor-cognitive task with different visualization technologies: IVR HMD, AR HMD, and a 2D screen. We evaluated participants' self-reported cognitive load, motivation, and usability using questionnaires. We also conducted a pilot study with five brain-injured patients comparing the visualization technologies while using an assistive device.
resultsElderly participants performed straighter, shorter duration, and smoother movements when the task was visualized with the HMDs than screen. The IVR HMD led to shorter duration movements than AR. Movement onsets were shorter with IVR than AR, and shorter for both HMDs than the screen, potentially indicating facilitated reaction times due to reduced cognitive load. No differences were found in the questionnaires regarding cognitive load, motivation, or usability between technologies in elderly participants. Both HMDs proved high usability in our small sample of patients.
conclusionsHMDs are a promising technology to be incorporated into neurorehabilitation, as their more naturalistic movement visualization improves movement quality compared to conventional screens. HMDs demonstrate high usability, without decreasing participants' motivation, and might potentially lower cognitive load. Our preliminary clinical results suggest that brain-injured patients may especially benefit from more immersive technologies. However, larger patient samples are needed to draw stronger conclusions.*.
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.