Cognitive Training Using Virtual Reality: An Assessment of Usability and Adverse Effects.
Myeonghwan Bang, Min A Kim, Sung Shin Kim and 1 others
PMID 39822192WHAT IT FOUND
Ten stroke survivors and twenty clinicians tried a new VR cognitive training program.
Both groups reported only moderate usability and mild-to-moderate motion sickness. No differences in comfort or ease of use were found between experienced and novice users.
Key findings
01Both rehabilitation professionals and stroke patients reported moderate usability scores, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups.
02Participants experienced mild-to-moderate VR sickness, but the severity did not differ significantly between clinicians and patients or based on prior VR experience.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study did not test whether the VR training actually improved cognitive function; it only assessed how usable and tolerable the system was. The sample size was very small, especially the group of 10 patients, which limits the ability to detect real differences between groups. The results are based on a single software program developed by the research team, so they may not apply to other VR cognitive training systems. The patient group had a mean age of 64.1 years, which is significantly older than the professional group (mean age 30.0 years), making it hard to separate the effects of age from the effects of being a patient.
Declared interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of significant differences in VR sickness or usability as proof that the system is equally easy for everyone. The small sample size means the study was likely underpowered to detect meaningful differences, particularly given the large age gap between the clinician and patient groups.