ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
The influence of experience and environments on usability and user experience in a wheelchair simulator.
Article in Annals of 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.
- Participatory co-design of pediatric rehabilitation technologies: a practice-based perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of people who require a wheelchair is rising due to an increased number of injuries and the growing number of elderly. Training of new wheelchair users is mandatory to let them feel independent and safe. Virtual reality (VR)-based wheelchair simulators allow training wheelchair skills in a controlled, safe, and repeatable environment. Our group recently developed a wheelchair simulator for a motion platform in semi-immersive VR.
objectiveTo assess the usability and user experience of two VR-based training environments in 20 participants considering the sense of presence, the cybersickness, the suitability of VR system, and the performance and to assess if these evaluations are influenced by the expertise in the use of a wheelchair. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe simulator was composed of a moving platform, an adaptable wheelchair, and two VR environments (one outdoor - OE, one indoor - IE) projected on a 180° screen. 10 able-bodied volunteers (wheelchair naïve-users, WNUs) and 10 expert wheelchair users (WUs) due to spinal cord injury were recruited. They performed one session during which they tested the indoor (IE) and the outdoor (OE) VR environment. Measures to assess user experience, such as the System Usability Scale, the Technological Acceptance Measure, and the Suitability Evaluation Questionnaire were administered.
resultsThe usability of WUs was high in both environments, while WNUs had some difficulties in IE navigation. Acceptance (TAM mean score) was significantly higher for the OE (p-value = 0.017) in both groups (WNU-OE: 5.11 ± 0.44; WU-OE: 5.18 ± 0.67; WNU-IE: 4.75 ± 0.47; WU-IE: 4.85 ± 0.62). Suitability was higher for OE and generally higher for WUs.
conclusionOur study focused on user experience during VR-powered wheelchair navigation in both WUs and naïve ones. The system proved to be engaging and caused low cybersickness effects. Future works will focus on longer training and will assess performance improvements longitudinally.
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.