| Literature DB >> 33759795 |
Yangfan Xu1,2, Meiqinzi Tong1, Wai-Kit Ming3, Yangyang Lin2, Wangxiang Mai1, Weixin Huang4, Zhuoming Chen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of virtual reality is popular in clinical rehabilitation, but the effects of using commercial virtual reality games in patients with stroke have been mixed.Entities:
Keywords: lower extremity; rehabilitation; rehabilitation game; stroke; virtual reality
Year: 2021 PMID: 33759795 PMCID: PMC8078039 DOI: 10.2196/20916
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Serious Games Impact factor: 4.143
Figure 1A participant experiencing Stomp Joy.
Figure 2(A) The 3 difficulty levels for the left and right feet and the unique lifting foot height recognition interface. (B) The system-specific adjustment of the curriculum difficulty’s design according to patient conditions and default settings. (C) The patient raises their right foot, and when the hip and knee flexion reach the requirements of this level, the footprints above the gopher will turn from white to red. (D) When patients step down with the right foot, it shows an image of the gopher fainting.
Figure 3Flowchart of the study. PT: physical therapy.
Key elements of a depth camera–based, task-specific virtual reality rehabilitation game [37].
| Component | Key elements |
| Device | OpenNI–compliant depth sensor, stable system |
| Design | Goal-oriented task-specific contents; interactive and interesting elements; and easy-to-understand tutorials to show explanation, evaluation, and training and increase motivation for rehabilitation |
| Difficulty level | Easy to know how to interact, adjustable to match individualized performance |
| Scoring | Scoring system to record and compare performance status |
| Sound | Sound showing feedback of the performance, exaggerated effects sounds to improve motivation |
IMI of the Stomp Joy intervention among patients with stroke.a
| IMIb subscale | Rating, mean (SD) | t test ( | |
| Interest and enjoyment | 5.91 (1.09) | 5.8 (10) | <.001 |
| Pressure and tension | 1.77 (0.90) | –8.17 (10) | <.001 |
| Perceive competence | 5.50 (1.00) | 4.98 (10) | .001 |
| Value and usefulness | 5.77 (1.03) | 5.69 (10) | <.001 |
| Effort and importance | 5.32 (1.27) | 3.44 (10) | .006 |
aAll of the statements used in this study were deliberately rephrased in positive terms that the patients could easily understand.
bIMI: Intrinsic Motivation Inventory [22].
Baseline characteristics of the patients with stroke (N=22).
| Outcome | Control group | Experimental group | |
| Male, n (%) | 8 (73) | 5 (46) | .39 |
| Hemorrhage, n (%) | 6 (55) | 5 (46) | .76 |
| Right-side lesion, n (%) | 9 (82) | 10 (91) | .61 |
| Height (cm), mean (SD) | 167.09 (4.46) | 162.72 (5.97) | .19 |
| Weight (kg), mean (SD) | 67.27 (7.93) | 60.54 (9.39) | .52 |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 52.82 (12.29) | 57.55 (14.22) | .53 |
| Time since stroke (months), mean (SD) | 4.91 (3.21) | 3.81 (3.60) | .93 |
| FMA-LEb, mean (SD) | 18.36 (5.52) | 22.64 (4.61) | .11 |
| MBIc, mean (SD) | 70.91 (16.10) | 70.45 (17.39) | .51 |
| BBSd, mean (SD) | 35.82 (10.32) | 37.73 (8.79) | .62 |
| SLSe time (s), mean (SD) | 1.09 (0.61) | 1.04 (0.61) | .86 |
aAll P values were for paired t tests except for gender (male or female), for which P value was for Fisher test. Statistically significant at P<.05.
bFMA-LE: Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Lower Extremity.
cMBI: Modified Barthel Index.
dBBS: Berg Balance Scale.
eSLS: single-leg stance.
Main effect of time, group, and time-group interaction of the intervention on the outcome measures by repeated-measures analysis of variance with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction.
| Parameters | Study group | ||||||||||
|
| Control group, mean (SD) | Experimental group, mean (SD) | Time | Group | Interaction | ||||||
|
|
|
| .001 (0.69) | .06 (0.32) | .006 (0.55) | ||||||
|
| Week 0 | 18.36 (5.52) | 22.64 (4.61) |
|
|
| |||||
|
| Week 2 | 19.82 (5.51) | 25.73 (4.45) |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| <.001 (0.82) | .76 (0.01) | .001 (0.66) | ||||||
|
| Week 0 | 70.91 (16.10) | 70.45 (17.39) |
|
|
| |||||
|
| Week 2 | 75.00 (15.17) | 80.00 (16.59) |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| <.001 (0.93) | .38 (0.08) | .004 (0.59) | ||||||
|
| Week 0 | 35.82 (10.32) | 37.73 (8.79) |
|
|
| |||||
|
| Week 2 | 38.00 (10.61) | 43.45 (9.30) |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| .025 (0.41) | <.001 (0.82) | .001 (0.68) | ||||||
|
| Week 0 | 1.09 (0.61) | 1.04 (0.61) |
|
|
| |||||
|
| Week 2 | 1.53 (0.71) | 3.63 (1.79) |
|
|
| |||||
aStatistically significant by repeated-measures analysis of variance.
bFMA-LE: Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Lower Extremity.
cMBI: Modified Barthel Index.
dBBS: Berg Balance Scale.
eSLS: single-leg stance.