Background Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool in neurorehabilitation to improve motor function in individuals with hemiplegia. VR applications are typically categorized into immersive and non-immersive types, both of which have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing upper limb function. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (IMVR) and non-immersive virtual reality (NIVR) therapies in improving upper limb motor function in individuals with subacute hemiplegia. Methods This single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 30 participants (aged 25–40 years, both male and female) with subacute hemiplegia. Individuals with pre-existing musculoskeletal or neurological conditions affecting the upper limb, severe motion sickness, photosensitivity, or perceptual deficits were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: Both groups initially received conventional physiotherapy, following which the immersive VR and non-immersive VR interventions were administered to the respective group. Each session lasted 60 min, with three sessions per week for six weeks. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-intervention (6 weeks), and follow-up (6 months) using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL). The System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) were used to evaluate the safety and usability of both VR methods. Results No statistically significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the groups. SUS and UEQ scores also showed no significant differences in user experience. However, IMVR demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FMA, WMFT, and SS-QOL scores compared to NIVR at both post-test and follow-up (p < 0.05). Conclusion Both immersive and non-immersive VR therapies were effective in enhancing upper limb motor function and quality of life among individuals with subacute hemiplegia. However, IMVR showed greater clinical significance in improving motor function and quality of life. Future research should explore the integration of VR across different stroke stages and focus on developing simple, task-specific games to further support rehabilitation. Trial registration This clinical trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov under the trial ID NCT06615141 on September 26, 2024.

Immersive versus non-immersive virtual reality in improving upper limb function among individuals with subacute hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年12月28日

查看全文

Athira George,
Sathees Kumar Durairaj,
Praveen Kumar Kandakurti,
Animesh Hazari

摘要

Background

Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool in neurorehabilitation to improve motor function in individuals with hemiplegia. VR applications are typically categorized into immersive and non-immersive types, both of which have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing upper limb function. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (IMVR) and non-immersive virtual reality (NIVR) therapies in improving upper limb motor function in individuals with subacute hemiplegia.

Methods

This single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 30 participants (aged 25–40 years, both male and female) with subacute hemiplegia. Individuals with pre-existing musculoskeletal or neurological conditions affecting the upper limb, severe motion sickness, photosensitivity, or perceptual deficits were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: Both groups initially received conventional physiotherapy, following which the immersive VR and non-immersive VR interventions were administered to the respective group. Each session lasted 60 min, with three sessions per week for six weeks. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-intervention (6 weeks), and follow-up (6 months) using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL). The System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) were used to evaluate the safety and usability of both VR methods.

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the groups. SUS and UEQ scores also showed no significant differences in user experience. However, IMVR demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FMA, WMFT, and SS-QOL scores compared to NIVR at both post-test and follow-up (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both immersive and non-immersive VR therapies were effective in enhancing upper limb motor function and quality of life among individuals with subacute hemiplegia. However, IMVR showed greater clinical significance in improving motor function and quality of life. Future research should explore the integration of VR across different stroke stages and focus on developing simple, task-specific games to further support rehabilitation.

Trial registration

This clinical trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov under the trial ID NCT06615141 on September 26, 2024.