ArticleEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025
The REAsmash serious game for the post-stroke diagnosis of distractor inhibition: contrast between immersive and non-immersive virtual reality test versions.
Article in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- REAsmash-ET: a methodological framework for combined cognitive and motor assessment through eye-tracking and kinematic metrics in immersive VR search-and-reach task.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) Serious Games (SG) offer greater sensitivity and specificity than traditional diagnostics. The playfulness of the SG reduces stress, enhancing motivation and reliability. We developed immersive (iVR) and non-immersive (niVR) versions of REAsmash, a SG based on Feature Integration Theory (FIT) to assess distractor inhibition attention.
aimThe aim of this study was to verify the transfer of the REAsmash FIT diagnostic properties across VR devices with different degrees of immersion.
designCross-sectional clinical study.
settingInpatient, outpatient and healthy controls. POPULATION: Post-stroke and healthy individuals.
methodsThe REAsmash involves searching for a (target) mole with a red miner's helmet. The target is either presented alone (baseline), or presented with distractors (11, 17 or 23) that contrast the target by high or low saliency (moles with blue miner's and horned helmets vs. blue miner's and red horned helmets). Stimuli appeared randomly from a 24-molehill grid. Participants (15 with and history of cortical-subcortical stroke and 15 age matched controls) hit the target with their response hand in niVR and with a virtual hammer in iVR. Post-stroke participants used their less impaired hand, controls their dominant hand. ANOVA tested VR type (niVR vs. iVR), group (post-stroke vs. healthy), saliency (high vs. low) and distractor number (11, 17, 23), with the interaction between saliency and distractor number defining FIT. The dependent variable was relative mean response time, calculated by subtracting the mean baseline response time from each response to targets presented with distractors, for each participant. This variable exemplifies the costs to response time cause by the manipulation of independent variables.
resultsWe found significant main effects and an interaction for saliency and distractor number, confirming FIT. Group and VR type main effects were significant, with slower responses for post-strokes and for iVR, but with no interactions.
conclusionsTo evaluate performance across acute to chronic post-stroke phases, diagnostic measures must be transferable between test devices, ensuring compatibility from hospital to outpatient settings. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our results demonstrated that the REAsmash diagnostic properties were consistent across immersive and non-immersive VR, as well as within both groups of participants.
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.