ArticleScientific reports2024
Therapists and patients perceptions of a mixed reality system designed to improve trunk control and upper extremity function.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools and methods for assessing the usability and related aspects of usability of extended reality and telerehabilitation technologies in stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Augmented and Mixed Reality Interventions in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Emerging Applications of Augmented and Mixed Reality Technologies in Motor Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A prototype system aimed at improving arm function and trunk control after stroke has been developed that combines mixed-reality (MR) feedback with a mobile seat system (Holoreach). The purpose of this study was to assess the usability of Holoreach in a rehabilitation setting from both the patient and therapist perspective. Ten therapists (eight physiotherapists and two occupational therapists) used the device in their regular therapy programs for fifteen stroke patients with trunk control issues. Each patient received four individual therapy sessions with the device performed under the supervision of the therapist. Therapists and patients kept therapy diaries and used customized questionnaires. At the end of the study two focus groups were conducted to further assess usability. Generally, the prototype system is suitable for training trunk and arm control. The therapists expressed overall positive views on the impact of Holoreach. They characterized it as new, motivating, fresh, joyful, interesting, and exciting. All therapists and 80% of the patients agreed with the statement that training with Holoreach is beneficial for rehabilitation. Nonetheless, improvements are required in the hardware and software, and design. The prototype system contributes at various levels to the rapidly evolving advances in neurorehabilitation, particularly regarding the practical aspect of exercise delivery.
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.