MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046915385 · doi:10.3109/17483107.2013.799236

The GestureTek virtual reality system in rehabilitation: a scoping review

2013· review· en· W2046915385 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Glegg, Sandy K. Tatla, Liisa Holsti

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRehabilitationCerebral palsyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)PsychologyVirtual realityCognitionCritical appraisalPhysical therapyMedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicinePsychiatryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To identify, to map out and to appraise research examining GestureTek virtual reality (VR) use for physical and cognitive rehabilitation and to highlight areas for future research. METHOD: Scoping review methodology was used to systematically and comprehensively search the academic and grey literature for GestureTek-specific research. Consensus was achieved following two reviewers' independent inclusion screening, data extraction and appraisal. RESULTS: Forty-four studies evaluated the utility and efficacy of the IREX, GX, VMall and Meal Maker software for rehabilitation across a range of populations, with few adverse events reported. Stroke and cerebral palsy research dominated, while geriatrics was largely overlooked. Efficacy research provided support for balance, mobility, upper extremity, cognitive, fitness and daily living skills outcomes for specific populations with effect sizes ranging from 0.19 to 3.34. Nevertheless, few strong quality or high-level studies are available, and no clear guidelines on optimal treatment characteristics exist. Outcomes of primary interest were at ICF body function and activity levels; evaluation of transfer of training across ICF levels is needed. CONCLUSIONS: This literature provides preliminary evidence for the technology's efficacy for rehabilitation. Identified research gaps relate to study quality and design, treatment characteristics, populations and outcomes of interest, including transfer across ICF levels. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: There is limited high-level evidence to support the use of the GestureTek virtual reality system for rehabilitation. Moderate to strong quality evidence exists primarily for the stroke and cerebral palsy populations, and primarily for balance, mobility and upper extremity outcomes. A lack of consistent outcome measures in this body of literature has created "silos" of research that cannot be quantitatively combined using a meta-analytic strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0250.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207