Posts Tagged Virtual rehabilitation

[ARTICLE] Tracking the evolution of virtual reality applications to rehabilitation as a field of study – Full Text



Application of virtual reality (VR) to rehabilitation is relatively recent with clinical implementation very rapidly following technological advancement and scientific discovery. Implementation is often so rapid that demonstrating intervention efficacy and establishing research priorities is more reactive than proactive. This study used analytical tools from information science to examine whether application of VR to rehabilitation has evolved as a distinct field of research or is primarily a methodology in core disciplines such as biomedical engineering, medicine and psychology.


The analysis was performed in three-stages: 1) a bibliographic search in the ISI Web of Science database created an initial corpus of publications, 2) the corpus was refined through topic modeling, and 3) themes dominating the corpus from the refined search results were identified by topic modeling and network analytics. This was applied separately to each of three time periods: 1996 to 2005 (418 publications), 2006 to 2014 (1454 publications), and 2015 to mid-2018 (1269 publications).


Publication rates have continuously increased across time periods with principal topics shifting from an emphasis on computer science and psychology to rehabilitation and public health. No terminology specific to the field of VR-based rehabilitation emerged; rather a range of central concepts including “virtual reality”, “virtual gaming”, “virtual environments”, “simulated environments” continue to be used. Communities engaged in research or clinical application of VR form assemblages distinguished by a focus on physical or psychological rehabilitation; these appear to be weakly linked through tele-rehabilitation.


Varying terms exemplify the main corpus of VR-based rehabilitation and terms are not consistent across the many scientific domains. Numerous distinguishable areas of research and clinical foci (e.g., Tele-rehabilitation, Gait & Balance, Cognitive Rehabilitation, Gaming) define the agenda. We conclude that VR-based rehabilitation consists of a network of scientific communities with a shared interest in the methodology rather than a directed and focused research field. An interlinked team approach is important to maintain scientific rigor and technological validity within this diverse group. Future studies should examine how these interdisciplinary communities individually define themselves with the goals of gathering knowledge and working collectively toward disseminating information essential to associated research communities.


Virtual Reality (VR) in general, and the application of VR to rehabilitation in particular, is a relatively young, interdisciplinary field where clinical implementation very rapidly follows scientific discovery and technological advancement. Indeed, implementation is often so rapid that demonstration of intervention efficacy by investigators, and establishment of research and development priorities by funding bodies, tends to be more reactive than proactive.

Rapid growth in the number and type of applications of VR to rehabilitation has occurred over the past 15 years, suggesting that the research in this area may be demonstrative of a new scientific field. Reviews of the research in this area (see e.g., Rizzo and Kim [], Sveistrup [], and Levin et al. []), however, focus principally on applications of VR technology to specific disability or impairment. If VR-based rehabilitation is chiefly one more tool in the field of rehabilitation science, then cross-disciplinary communication could consist primarily of reporting methodological approaches. If, however, VR-based rehabilitation has emerged as a distinctive scientific domain, then it becomes the responsibility of the scientists and clinicians engaged in this work to disseminate both research insights and future directions across engaged disciplines. Our aim in the current study is to use tools of analysis from the domain of information science to examine whether application of VR to rehabilitation has evolved as a distinct field of research or is primarily a methodology in core disciplines such as biomedical engineering, medicine and psychology.

We initiated our search in 1996 because only one moderately relevant review article alluding to virtual reality being applied to medicine was found prior to that time []. Thus Period 1 (1996–2005) is defined as the period in which key technological developments emerged that influenced the use of VR technology for rehabilitation (Fig. 1). The most characteristic features of the early technologies in Period 1 were their large size, high cost and limited accuracy. These systems led to several pioneering motor rehabilitation applications [] whose clinical relevance was still uncertain since their high cost, technical complexity, and encumbrance severely limited access to both hardware or software []. Although there was limited recognition of its growing clinical potential, no significant grassroots perception of the need for VR-based interventions took hold during this period.

Continue —->  Tracking the evolution of virtual reality applications to rehabilitation as a field of study | SpringerLink

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[WEB SITE] Study: Virtual PT Outperforms Traditional Approach

Elizabeth Hofheinz, M.P.H., M.Ed. • Tue, October 23rd, 2018

Print this article

San Diego, California-based Reflexion Health, Inc., in conjunction with the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina, has announced positive results from a (as yet unpublished) randomized controlled clinical trial, “Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation In-home Therapy: A Research Study (VERITAS).”

The trial was designed to evaluate the cost and clinical non-inferiority of using a virtual rehabilitation platform to deliver physical therapy following total knee replacement surgery.

“Physical therapy is a critical component of recovery for patients following total joint replacement surgery. As people live longer and these surgeries become more common, it is important to identify solutions that maintain or improve outcomes while decreasing the burden on patients and providers,” said Janet Prvu Bettger, Ph.D., associate professor with the Duke Department of Orthopedic Surgery and principal investigator of the study.

According to Reflexion Health, “VERITAS was a multi-center, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 306 adult participants scheduled for knee replacement surgery at four U.S. sites. Of the consented participants, 287 completed the trial. The treatment group concluded with 143 adults who received Reflexion Health’s VERA [Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation Assistant] both pre- and post-surgery, compared with a control group of 144 adults who received traditional in-home or clinic-based physical therapy at participating sites. Clinical outcomes, health service use, and costs were examined for three months after surgery.”

“The study results demonstrated an average cost savings of $2,745 per patient for those who received virtual physical therapy using VERA technology with clinical oversight when compared to usual care with traditional physical therapy. Virtual physical therapy met its secondary effectiveness endpoints of non-inferiority for reducing disability and improving knee function. Compared with usual care, safety endpoints for patients with virtual physical therapy were similar.”

“VERITAS provides the highest level of evidence that VERA is a more cost-effective, patient-centered alternative to traditional care,” said Joseph Smith, M.D., Ph.D., chief executive officer of ReflexionHealth.“The strength of these results should give providers and payors the proof they need to adopt VERA. Engaging and delighting patients with a convenient and connected solution in the comfort of their own home, while providing similar or better clinical outcomes and dramatically reducing overall healthcare costs is a win for everyone.”

Dr. Smith told OTW, “The first development milestone was proof of concept—proving that all patients could use it (usability) and that the feedback to each patient about their exercises was appropriate. The second milestone was that use of VERA improved compliance/adherence while delighting patients. The final milestones (as proven in the VERITAS trial) were that overall outcomes were at least as good as standard of care while the costs to everyone were much lower.”

“For busy clinicians, VERA provides unprecedented and efficient visibility into the patient’s post-operative recovery while greatly diminishing the overall cost of post-surgical rehabilitation.”

“For patients, VERA provides convenience, dramatically enhanced compliance, the comfort of an on-demand, at-home solution, and cost-savings from avoided travel and co-pays—and they love it!”

via Study: Virtual PT Outperforms Traditional Approach | Orthopedics This Week

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] A Scoping Study on the Development of an Interactive Upper-Limb Rehabilitation System Framework for Patients with Stroke – Conference paper


This study aims to propose the framework of the interactive upper-limb rehabilitation system with brain-computer interfaces. The system mainly includes an interactive rehabilitation training platform, a rehabilitation database system, and an EEG and EMG acquisition system. The interactive rehabilitation training system platform includes a virtual rehabilitation game system and an interactive upper-limb rehabilitation device by which a user can perform proactive and reactive rehabilitation.


  1. 1.
    Hesse, S., Schulte-Tigges, G., Konrad, M., Bardeleben, A., Werner, C.: Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 84, 915–920 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staubli, P., Nef, T., Klamroth-Marganska, V., Riener, R.: Effects of intensive arm training with the rehabilitation robot ARMin II in chronic stroke patients: four single-cases. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 6, 46 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart, K.C., Cauraugh, J.H., Summers, J.J.: Bilateral movement training and stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Neurol. Sci. 244, 89–95 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lum, P.S., Burgar, C.G., Shor, P.C., Majmundar, M., Van der Loos, M.: Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 83, 952–959 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woodbury, M.L., Howland, D.R., McGuirk, T.E., Davis, S.B., Senesac, C.R., Kautz, S.: Effects of trunk restraint combined with intensive task practice on poststroke upper extremity reach and function: a pilot study. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair 23, 78–91 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rossini, P.M., Rossi, S.: Transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 68, 484 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knott, M., Voss, D.E., Hipshman, H.D., Buckley, J.B.: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation: Patterns and Techniques. Hoeber Medical Division, Harper & Row, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dickstein, R., Hocherman, S., Pillar, T., Shaham, R.: Stroke rehabilitation three exercise therapy approaches. Phys. Ther. 66, 1233–1238 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zackowski, K.M., Dromerick, A.W., Sahrmann, S.A., Thach, W.T., Bastian, A.J.: How do strength, sensation, spasticity and joint individuation relate to the reaching deficits of people with chronic hemiparesis? Brain 127, 1035–1046 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sterr, A., Freivogel, S.: Motor-improvement following intensive training in low-functioning chronic hemiparesis. Neurology 61, 842–844 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mouri, T., Kawasaki, H., Nishimoto, Y., Aoki, T., Ishigure, Y., Tanahashi, M.: Robot hand imitating disabled person for education/training of rehabilitation. J. Robot. Mechatron. 20, 280–288 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shin, Y., Lee, S., Lee, J., Lee, H.N.: Sparse representation-based classification scheme for motor imagery-based brain-computer interface systems. J. Neural Eng. 9, 056002 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lotte, F., Congedo, M., Lecuyer, A., Lamarche, F., Arnaldi, B.: A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces. J. Neural Eng. 4, R1–R13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma, N., Pomeroy, V.M., Baron, J.-C.: Motor imagery: a backdoor to the motor system after stroke? Stroke 37, 1941–1952 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou, J., Yao, J., Deng, J., Dewald, J.P.A.: EEG-based classification for elbow versus shoulder torque intentions involving stroke subjects. Comput. Biol. Med. 39, 443–452 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

via A Scoping Study on the Development of an Interactive Upper-Limb Rehabilitation System Framework for Patients with Stroke | SpringerLink

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] A low cost kinect-based virtual rehabilitation system for inpatient rehabilitation of the upper limb in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot trial.



We designed this study to prove the efficacy of the low-cost Kinect-based virtual rehabilitation (VR) system for upper limb recovery among patients with subacute stroke.


A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial was performed. A total of 23 subjects with subacute stroke (<3 months) were allocated to sham (n = 11) and real VR group (n = 12). Both groups participated in a daily 30-minute occupational therapy for upper limb recovery for 10 consecutive weekdays. Subjects received an additional daily 30-minute Kinect-based or sham VR. Assessment was performed before the VR, immediately and 1 month after the last session of VR. Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) (primary outcome) and other secondary functional outcomes were measured. Accelerometers were used to measure hemiparetic upper limb movements during the therapy.


FMA immediately after last VR session was not different between the sham (46.8 ± 16.0) and the real VR group (49.4 ± 14.2) (P = .937 in intention to treat analysis). Significant differences of total activity counts (TAC) were found in hemiparetic upper limb during the therapy between groups (F2,26 = 4.43; P = .22). Real VR group (107,926 ± 68,874) showed significantly more TACs compared with the sham VR group (46,686 ± 25,814) but there was no statistical significance between real VR and control (64,575 ± 27,533).


Low-cost Kinect-based upper limb rehabilitation system was not more efficacious compared with sham VR. However, the compliance in VR was good and VR system induced more arm motion than control and similar activity compared with the conventional therapy, which suggests its utility as an adjuvant additional therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

PMID:29924029 DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000011173

via A low cost kinect-based virtual rehabilitation system for inpatient rehabilitation of the upper limb in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized… – PubMed – NCBI

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[BOOK] Emerging Therapies in Neurorehabilitation II – [Chapter] Virtual Rehabilitation – Request PDF


This chapter addresses the current state of the art of virtual rehabilitation by summarizing recent research results that focus on the assessment and remediation of motor impairments using virtual rehabilitation technology. Moreover, strengths and weaknesses of the virtual rehabilitation approach and its technical and clinical implications will be discussed. This overview is an update and extension of a previous virtual rehabilitation chapter with a similar focus. Despite tremendous advancements in virtual reality hardware in the past few years, clinical evidence for the efficacy of virtual rehabilitation methods is still sparse. All recent meta-analyses agree that the potential of virtual reality systems for motor rehabilitation in stroke and traumatic brain injury populations is evident, but that larger clinical trials are needed that address the contribution of individual aspects of virtual rehabilitation systems on different patient populations in acute and chronic stages of neurorehabilitation.

Virtual Rehabilitation | Request PDF. Available from:

via Virtual Rehabilitation | Request PDF

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[BLOG POST] Tyromotion Introduces Virtual Reality to Robotic Therapy to Facilitate Stroke Recovery

Rehabilitation technology leader Tyromotion has developed a rehabilitation device that combines virtual reality with robotic therapy to make stroke rehabilitation faster and more efficient.

Tyromotion has created a rehabilitation device that uses a bilateral 3D arm robot and virtual reality glasses to fully immerse stroke patients in virtual worlds where both the visual and physical environments can be shaped. The device is designed to help patients with limited arm function perform daily tasks by challenging and encouraging them to increase their range of motion and the number of repetitions during their therapy sessions. Both these elements are vital to motor learning.

The introduction of virtual reality into therapy delivers a 3D training environment that can be adapted to each individual patient’s abilities. The virtual setting has a gaming element to it, which helps motivate patients to keep repeating their exercises.

Tyromotion’s device is currently being tested by leading rehabilitation facilities in Europe and the United States. The initial reports from therapists and doctors have been very positive, indicating that the new approach to therapy has a strong potential to transform it by increasing patient motivation and making therapy programs more cost effective across the board.

Diego, the robot-assisted arm rehabilitation device used to deliver VR therapy, is the world’s most versatile arm-shoulder rehabilitation device, one that combines robotics with intelligent gravity compensation (IGC) and virtual reality to help patients regain lost arm function. The device offers passive, active and assistive, uni- and bilateral applications that are easily adapted to meet the needs of each patient.

The gravity compensation feature makes heavy arms lighter, allowing physiological movement of the arms in every phase of rehabilitation. The device gives patients more room and more freedom to move and is particularly well suited for task-oriented training with real objects.

Diego offers a versatile range of therapy options with interactive therapy modules that provide haptic and audiovisual feedback, immersing patients in motion in the virtual environment. The therapy modules have different levels of difficulty, which motivates patients to keep making progress. Their progress is then recorded to make their achievements visible.

Diego is suitable for patients of all ages and can be used in all phases of arm rehabilitation. Watch the video below to learn more about its features and benefits.

Related news:

Tyrostation Offers Versatile Range of Therapy Options

Source: Tyromotion Introduces Virtual Reality to Robotic Therapy to Facilitate Stroke Recovery | Fitness Gaming

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] USEQ: A Short Questionnaire for Satisfaction Evaluation of Virtual Rehabilitation Systems – Full Text HTML


New emerging technologies have proven their efficacy in aiding people in their rehabilitation. The tests that are usually used to evaluate usability (in general) or user satisfaction (in particular) of this technology are not specifically focused on virtual rehabilitation and patients. The objective of this contribution is to present and evaluate the USEQ (User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire). The USEQ is a questionnaire that is designed to properly evaluate the satisfaction of the user (which constitutes part of usability) in virtual rehabilitation systems. Forty patients with balance disorders completed the USEQ after their first session with ABAR (Active Balance Rehabilitation), which is a virtual rehabilitation system that is designed for the rehabilitation of balance disorders. Internal consistency analysis and exploratory factor analysis were carried out to identify the factor structure of the USEQ. The six items of USEQ were significantly associated with each other, and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the questionnaire was 0.716. In an analysis of the principal components, a one-factor solution was considered to be appropriate. The findings of the study suggest that the USEQ is a reliable questionnaire with adequate internal consistency. With regard to patient perception, the patients found the USEQ to be an easy-to-understand questionnaire with a convenient number of questions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Usability

Usability is an important quality attribute of a user’s experience when interacting with a system or tool, and it is also an important attribute in helping users to achieve the suggested goals [1]. With regard to HCI (Human–Computer Interface) and usability, Bevan states in [2] that standards related to usability can be categorized as being primarily concerned with the use of the product (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specific context of use).
The categorization of Bevan is coherent with the ISO 9241-11 standard [3,4,5], which describes a widely accepted definition of usability. This standard indicates the rules that are needed in terms of ergonomics, hardware, software, and environments in order to obtain good usability for a product or system. Section 8.1 describes the term usability as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use”.

1.2. Usability in Virtual Rehabilitation

One of the promising and emerging fields within rehabilitation therapies for different pathologies is virtual rehabilitation (VRh) [6,7,8,9]. VRh systems are designed to assist clinical specialists and patients in the rehabilitation process [10]. The use of ground-breaking technologies together with the emergence of entertaining and playful virtual environments (VE) have demonstrated promising results in the rehabilitation process [11,12,13,14], improving the adherence to treatments [12]. However, these systems should be tested regarding important aspects such as usability.
Currently, there are different questionnaires that are designed to evaluate usability in general-purpose systems. The best-known usability questionnaire is the system usability scale (SUS) [15,16], which measures the feeling of usability of the users when using computer systems. It is composed of 10 questions with a five-point Likert attitude scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). This questionnaire has been used in different domains such as: security software [17], mobile phones [18,19], PDA [20], Social Network sites [21,22], wiki sites [23], serious games [24], or robotics [25]. Even though the SUS questionnaire is not specifically designed for VRh systems, it has also been used for rehabilitation purposes due to the lack of questionnaires that focus on VRh systems. Meldrum et al. [26] tested balance in patients with vestibular and other neurological diseases using VRh and quantified the usability of the Nintendo Wii Fit Plus®. Duvinage et al. [27] assessed the usability of a P300 system (using Brain–Computer interfaces) for lower-limb rehabilitation purposes. One considerable advantage of the SUS questionnaire is the reasonable number of questions that are to be answered at the end of the first session. However, the concepts of this questionnaire are too generic (computers, PDAs, Websites, etc.). The main drawback of the SUS questionnaire is that it does not include questions to obtain responses about specific items related to Virtual Rehabilitation.
Another well-known usability questionnaire is VRUSE [28]. Fitzgerald et al. [29] assessed the usability of the E-Yoga system using VRUSE, with the goal of improving postural control and biomechanical alignment of the subjects in a rehabilitation process. The VRUSE evaluates a wide range of concepts: functionality, user input, system output (display), user guidance and help, consistency, flexibility, simulation fidelity, error correction/handling and robustness, sense of immersion/presence, and overall system usability. The main drawback of this test is the large number of questions that the patients are required to answer [28]: the complete questionnaire has 100 questions. This drawback is especially important if the patients involved in a rehabilitation process have neurological and/or cognitive disorders. Other simplified usability questionnaires for VRh with reasonable outcomes are described in [30,31,32,33], but the drawback of these questionnaires is that the internal consistency has not yet been validated.
Kizony et al. [34] published the Short Feedback Questionnaire (SFQ), which is a questionnaire that is related to Witmer and Singer’s Presence Questionnaire [35]. It is composed of eight questions with a five-point Likert attitude scale, and it has been used in virtual reality environments [36,37,38]. The SFQ questionnaire evaluates the user’s sense of presence, perceived difficulty of the task, and any discomfort that users may have felt during the experience. This questionnaire does not focus on VRh systems.
To our knowledge, there are no validated questionnaires for testing usability or satisfaction of virtual rehabilitation systems. A questionnaire for this purpose must have a reasonable number of questions and internal consistency reliability.
Following the definitions of usability in [2,3,4,5], usability can be divided into three components: efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Focusing on VRh, efficiency and effectiveness can usually be measured through a clinical trial. With a classical clinical trial, we can compare an experimental group (using a VRh system) with a control group (following a traditional rehabilitation program) by evaluating efficacy and comparing the recovery level of the two groups. With regard to effectiveness, we can measure, for instance, the number of sessions that each group needs to reach a certain level. However, the third component of usability, satisfaction, cannot be evaluated in the same way as efficiency and effectiveness: a reliable and consistent questionnaire (with an adequate number of questions) is necessary to measure the satisfaction of the users.
The aim of the present study is to introduce the USEQ, a user satisfaction questionnaire that is specifically designed to evaluate satisfaction with virtual rehabilitation systems, and to validate their reliability by analyzing their internal consistency.

2. USEQ: The User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire

2.1. SEQ: The Suitability Evaluation Questionnaire

In [39], the SEQ was introduced as a 14-question questionnaire that is designed to test items such as satisfaction, acceptance, and security of use in virtual rehabilitation systems. The SEQ was designed by a multidisciplinary team of clinical and technical experts. Factors such as the length of the questionnaire, the type of questions to be asked and what to ask were taken into account in the design of the questionnaire. For the length of the questionnaire, the clinical experts that collaborated in the design of the SEQ estimated that a maximum of 15 questions would be an acceptable length for patients.
For the type of questions, the designers of the SEQ considered 13 questions with a five-point Likert Scale, plus an open-ended question offering patients the possibility to add comments if necessary. The SEQ has a five-point Likert Scale questions (instead of other options such as seven-point Likert Scale questions) because the authors considered five options of answers to be good enough, and, also, it is coherent with the main usability questionnaires that are currently being used: SUS [15], VRUSE [28], and SFQ [34] also use five-point Likert Scale questions.
For what to ask about, the designers of the SEQ composed the questions taking into account the usability questionnaires available and their own experience, both in the technical and in the clinical field.
A previous study evaluating the suitability of virtual rehabilitation for the elderly was carried out using the SEQ [40]. The SEQ was used to evaluate the ABAR (Active Balance Rehabilitation) system, the VRh system that is used in this study. The study presented in [40] allowed the evaluation of the perceived length and difficulty of the SEQ. In [40], the patients completed the questionnaire without any problems. None of the patients considered the questionnaire to be too long. The main drawback of SEQ is that it is composed of different dimensions; therefore, it is not possible to evaluate their internal consistency.

Source: Sensors | Free Full-Text | USEQ: A Short Questionnaire for Satisfaction Evaluation of Virtual Rehabilitation Systems | HTML

Figure 1. Patient interacting with the ABAR system.


, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[WEB SITE] ISVR Newsletter – International Society for Virtual Rehabilitation

ISVR Newsletter

Welcome to the newsletter of the International Society for Virtual Rehabilitation! The aim of this newsletter is to help fulfill the mission of the Society by providing regular information on activities and topics of interest in Virtual Rehabilitation relevant to current and potential future members.

The newsletter consists of four regular sections: a technological and a clinical profile of experienced virtual rehabilitation researchers, a feature article and the latest news from the society. We welcome your suggestions for future topics. Please let us know your feedback on, and join our mailing list!

Date Issue
April 2017 ISVR Newsletter Issue 10
December 2016 ISVR Newsletter Issue 9
September 2016 ISVR Newsletter Issue 8
April 2016 ISVR Newsletter Issue 7
November 2015 ISVR Newsletter Issue 6
August 2015 ISVR Newsletter Issue 5
April 2015 ISVR Newsletter Issue 4
December 2014 ISVR Newsletter Issue 3
August 2014 ISVR Newsletter Issue 2
March 2014 ISVR Newsletter Issue 1

Source: ISVR Newsletter | International Society for Virtual Rehabilitation

, ,

Leave a comment

[Thesis] Exploring In-Home Monitoring of Rehabilitation and Creating an Authoring Tool for Physical Therapists – Full Text PDF


Physiotherapy is a key part of treatment for neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, which affect millions in the U.S. each year. Physical therapy treatments typically consist of an initial diagnostic session during which patients’ impairments are assessed and exercises are prescribed to improve the impaired functions. As part of the treatment program, exercises are often assigned to be performed at home daily. Patients return to the clinic weekly or biweekly for check-up visits during which the physical therapist reassesses their condition and makes further treatment decisions, including readjusting the exercise prescriptions.

Most physical therapists work in clinics or hospitals. When patients perform their exercises at home, physical therapists cannot supervise them and lack quantitative exercise data reflecting the patients’ exercise compliance and performance. Without this information, it is difficult for physical therapists to make informed decisions or treatment adjustments. To make informed decisions, physical therapists need to know how often patients exercise, the duration and/or repetitions of each session, exercise metrics such as the average velocities and ranges of motion for each exercise, patients’ symptom levels (e.g. pain or dizziness) before and after exercise, and what mistakes patients make.

In this thesis, I evaluate and work towards a solution to this problem. The growing ubiquity of mobile and wearable technology makes possible the development of “virtual rehabilitation assistants.” Using motion sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes that are embedded in a wearable device, the “assistant” can mediate between patients at home and physical therapists in the clinic. Its functions are to:

  • use motion sensors to record home exercise metrics for compliance and performance and report these metrics to physical therapists in real-time or periodically;
  • allow physical therapists and patients to quantify and see progress on a fine-grain level;
  • record symptom levels to further help physical therapists gauge the effectiveness of exercise prescriptions;
  • offer real-time mistake recognition and feedback to the patients during exercises;

One contribution of this thesis is an evaluation of the feasibility of this idea in real home settings. Because there has been little research on wearable virtual assistants in patient homes, there are many unanswered questions regarding their use and usefulness:

  • Q1. What patient in-home data could wearable virtual assistants gather to support physical therapy treatments?
  • Q2. Can patient data gathered by virtual assistants be useful to physical therapists?
  • Q3. How is this wearable in-home technology received by patients?

I sought to answer these questions by implementing and deploying a prototype called “SenseCap.” SenseCap is a small mobile device worn on a ball cap that monitors patients’ exercise movements and queries them about their symptoms. A technology probe study showed that the virtual assistant could gather important compliance, performance, and symptom data to assist physical therapists’ decision-making, and that this technology would be feasible and acceptable for in-home use by patients.

Another contribution of this thesis is the development of a tool to allow physical therapists to create and customize virtual assistants. With current technology, virtual assistants require engineering and programming efforts to design, implement, configure and deploy them. Because most physical therapists do not have access to an engineering team they and their patients would be unable to benefit from this technology. With the goal of making virtual assistants accessible to any physical therapist, I explored the following research questions:

  • Q4. Would a user-friendly rule-specification interface make it easy for physical therapists to specify correct and incorrect exercise movements directly to a computer? What are the limitations of this method of specifying exercise rules?
  • Q5. Is it possible to create a CAD-type authoring tool, based on a usable interface, that physical therapists could use to create their own customized virtual assistant for monitoring and coaching patients? What are the implementation details of such a system and the resulting virtual assistant?
  • Q6. What preferences do PTs have regarding the delivery of coaching feedback for patients?
  • Q7. What is the recognition accuracy of a virtual rehabilitation assistant created by this tool?

This dissertation research aims to improve our understanding of the barriers to rehabilitation that occur because of the invisibility of home exercise behavior, to lower these barriers by making it possible for patients to use a widely-available and easily-used wearable device that coaches and monitors them while they perform their exercises, and improve the ability of physical therapists to create an exercise regime for their patients and to learn what patients have done to perform these exercises. In doing so, treatment should be better suited to each patient and more successful.

To Continue —> Download Full Text PDF


, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Visualisation of two-dimensional kinematic data from bimanual control of a commercial gaming system used in post-stroke rehabilitation – Full Text PDF


Kinematic data from two stroke participants and a healthy control were collected using a novel bimanual rehabilitation system. The system employs two customized PlayStation Move Controllers and an Eye camera to track the participants’ hand movements.

In this study, the participants played a Facebook game by symmetrically moving both hands to control the computer’s mouse cursor. The collected data were recorded during one game session, and movement distribution analysis was performed to create density plots of each participant’s hand motion in the XY plane.

This type of kinematic information that can be gathered by rehabilitation systems with motion tracking capabilities has the potential to be used by therapists to monitor and guide home-based rehabilitation programs.

Full Text PDF

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: