Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the koko-analytics domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /hum/web/sitestest.hum.uu.nl/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the formidable domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /hum/web/sitestest.hum.uu.nl/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
SMARTneurolab | Now online: Feasibility and user-experience of virtual reality in neuropsychological assessment following stroke.

SMARTneurolab

SMARTneurolab

News

Posted on 26 April 2022 by Eileen Bousché
in: Categories: News.

Now online: Feasibility and user-experience of virtual reality in neuropsychological assessment following stroke.

Feasibility and user-experience of virtual reality in neuropsychological assessment following stroke

Spreij, L. A., Visser-Meily, J. M., Sibbel, J., Gosselt, I. K., & Nijboer, T. C. (2020). Neuropsychological Rehabilitation https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2020.1831935

Virtual Reality (VR) offers the possibility to assess cognitive functioning in a dynamic environment resembling daily life. In this cross-sectional study, we used two user interfaces, namely non-immersive VR by using a computer monitor (CM) and immersive VR by using a head-mounted display (HMD).

Procedure of the within subject design of this study.

We investigated (1) potential differences in feasibility, user-experience, and a potential preference for one user interface over another between stroke patients and healthy controls; (2) potential differences in feasibility, user-experience, and preference between patients referred for inpatient rehabilitation care and patients referred for outpatient rehabilitation care; and (3) potential demographic and clinical characteristics that were related to patients’ preference for one user interface over another.

The user-experience of both user interface (CM vs. HMD) and the preference (for CM, HMD, or both) is depicted, split for stroke patients and healthy controls.

Stroke patients (n = 88) and healthy controls (n = 66) performed a VR-task with a CM and HMD. Both user interfaces were feasible to use, irrespective of clinical referral (in- or outpatient rehabilitation care). Patients reported an enhanced feeling of engagement, transportation, flow, and presence, but more negative side effects when tested with a HMD, compared to a CM. The majority of stroke patients had no preference for one user interface over the other, yet younger patients tended to prefer a HMD. VR seems highly feasible in stroke patients.