Guest Editor's Introduction to the Special Section on Virtual Rehabilitation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This special section of Presence presents papers selected from platform presentations at the 2022 International Society for Virtual Rehabilitation (ISVR) Conference. Now called the World Congress for the International Society for Virtual Rehabilitation (WCISVR), the conference is ISVR's flagship meeting, providing an in-depth presentation of novel technologies and clinical developments in the field of virtual reality and associated topics related to rehabilitation and health improvement. ISVR 2022 was part of the larger RehabWeek 2022 event in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, which attracted 740 attendees from 48 countries. The ISVR presented 30 proceedings papers with 120 co-authors, including 25 podium talks and 2 keynotes. Over 160 delegates from 30 countries attended the sessions.As noted by Denche-Zamorano et al. (2023) in their recent bibliometric analysis, scientific production in the field of virtual and augmented reality research has increased since 2009, and rehabilitation is one of the most prevalent publication domains. The four papers in this special section highlight the diversity of virtual and augmented reality applications across a range of populations, contexts, and settings. Papers explore the potential of virtual environments to provide augmented feedback, enable standardized data collection and implementation of machine learning models to classify and predict performance, and assess and train physical and cognitive abilities in different populations in laboratory-based and community settings.The first two papers in this special section explore the potential of immersive VR to assess and intervene in a context of motor rehabilitation. Wilson Canete, Wright, and Jacobs present a study with healthy young adults, exploring the effects of providing augmented feedback on the estimation of virtual speed in an immersive virtual environment presented in a head-mounted display. Their study contributes to the evidence base to understand how individuals cope with the inherent perception–action differences in VR as compared to the real world, and how to optimally present augmented feedback to optimize sensorimotor inputs. Belger, Poppe, Karnath, Villringer, and Thone-Otto evaluate the use of immersive VR in the assessment of spatial neglect in post-stroke populations. They specifically explore the use of machine learning techniques to identify features in temporal behavioral patterns to detect subtle neglect. The study shows the potential of VR to provide a standardized data collection environment and generate large amounts of precise data suitable for machine learning models.Moving into a cognitive rehabilitation focus, Francova, Jablonska, and Fajnerova outline the potential of assessment and intervention using immersive virtual reality to provide exposure therapy for claustrophobia, presenting a study that designed and evaluated virtual environments for this purpose. The authors evaluate the effectiveness of these virtual environments to induce claustrophobic fear in a small sample of adults with and without claustrophobia.Finally, Gali, Beste Ercan, Atherton, Cross, Heaton, Sayis, and Pares broaden the scope of the technologies and the populations of interest in this section to include a mixed reality environment using a large-scale floor projection that tracks handheld interactive objects to influence interpersonal motor synchronization to a common rhythm in young children. Their study endeavors to move beyond the need for human facilitation of this behavior by evaluating the potential of playful mixed reality environments to induce synchrony among groups of children.In conclusion, these four papers highlight the diversity of VR applications in physical and cognitive rehabilitation and showcase the work being done in this area, providing insights into specific research trends, needs, and future projections in the field of virtual rehabilitation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle