Making Video Games More Inclusive for People Living With Motor Neuron Disease: Scoping Review.
Ben O'Mara, Matthew Harrison, Kirsten Harley and 1 others
PMID 39714921WHAT IT FOUND
Most evidence on gaming for people with motor neuron disease comes from non-academic sources and lacks patient input.
While customized controls and eye-gaze tech are common, 91% of reviewed papers did not include lived experience, so reliable guidance on what actually makes games fun or accessible is missing.
Key findings
01The vast majority of reviewed literature did not draw from the actual lived experience of people with MND playing video games.
02Brain-computer interfaces were the most common technology studied, but academic research rarely focused on the games themselves, often using simple tests like tic-tac-toe instead of titles players actually want to play.
03Gray literature, such as blogs and nonprofit resources, provided most of the practical advice on game modifications and accessibility, though this evidence was of very low quality.
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 review is a scoping review, meaning it maps the available evidence rather than assessing the quality or effectiveness of interventions. 91% of the included literature did not involve the lived experience of people with MND, so the findings may not reflect what patients actually need or want. Much of the relevant information came from gray literature (blogs, nonprofit sites), which the authors classified as very low quality due to risk of bias and lack of rigorous study design. The search was limited to English-language publications between 2010 and 2024, potentially missing relevant work from other languages or time periods. Most academic studies focused on technology prototypes (like BCIs) rather than usable, commercial games, limiting the practical applicability of the findings.
Declared interests
One author (BO) was the information resources manager at Motor Neurone Disease Australia during the review. Another author (KH) was a board member of Motor Neurone Disease New South Wales during the review. The paper does not list external funding sources in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this review as evidence that specific assistive technologies or game modifications improve clinical outcomes like quality of life or social inclusion. The authors state that the evidence base is of low to very low quality and that 91% of the literature lacked patient input. This is a map of what has been written, not a proof of what works.