ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Prism Adaptation Using Virtual Reality and Conventional Prism Glasses.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundUnilateral spatial neglect (USN) is a symptom of cerebrovascular disorders characterized by impaired attention to the space opposite a cerebral hemisphere lesion. Prism adaptation (PA) is a rehabilitation technique considered effective for treating USN. PA involves performing tasks while wearing prism glasses, which shift the visual field and help correct spatial perception. However, methods tailored to the severity of USN have not been fully established. Virtual reality (VR) has been proposed as a potential solution. This study aimed to compare the effects of a VR-based PA system and conventional prism glasses under equivalent task conditions.
methodsThe participants included 40 healthy, right-handed adults. Each participant completed three conditions: control, prism glasses, and VR. The order of these conditions was counterbalanced across participants. A one-week washout period was implemented between conditions. For evaluation, the open-loop pointing (OLP) test, the landmark task, and the line bisection task were administered as baseline assessments. Participants then performed the PA task. After the PA task, the same evaluations were repeated as post assessments. A leftward deviation following the PA was considered indicative of successful adaptation. A chi-square test was used to analyze changes in OLP test scores between the pre- and post assessments. Furthermore, for participants with successful PA, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the magnitude of aftereffects across conditions.
resultsAmong the 40 participants, 19 showed a leftward deviation in the prism glasses condition and 34 in the VR condition, indicating a statistically significant difference. Among the 17 participants with successful PA in both the prism and VR conditions, a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect in OLP test score changes. Post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between the control condition and both the prism glasses and VR conditions.
conclusionThe VR-based PA system induced PA in more participants than conventional prism glasses and produced comparable aftereffects. These findings support the utility of VR-based PA and suggest its potential to advance future rehabilitation methods.
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.