Comparison of brain activation and functional outcomes between physical and virtual reality box and block test: a case study.
Sheridan M Parker, Sydney C Andreasen, Brian Ricks and 3 others
PMID 35704460WHAT IT FOUND
In one person with chronic stroke, no difference was found between a VR box-and-block test and the real test for blocks moved or brain activity.
This is one case, not proof VR works.
Key findings
01With the affected hand, the participant moved 1 block in both the physical and VR tests, and no difference was found.
02With the less-affected hand, the participant moved 37 ± 1 blocks in the physical test and 35 ± 1 blocks in the VR test, and no difference was found.
03Motor cortex activation and hemisphere balance did not differ between the physical and VR tests.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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
This was one participant, so it cannot show what would happen in other people with stroke. The order was fixed: the real test was done first, and the less-affected hand was done before the affected hand, so a learning effect could have affected later trials. Breaks between trials were not standardised, which could have affected brain activation baselines. fNIRS has limited spatial specificity and cannot see deeper brain structures.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that VR box-and-block testing is proven equivalent to the physical test or can replace it. This was one person, the conditions were not randomised, and the study only found no difference in block counts or brain activity.