MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177193087 · doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.681034

Virtual Reality in Fibromyalgia: Does Altering Visual Feedback Impact on Pain and Movement During Reaching?

2021· article· en· W3177193087 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Virtual Reality · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité Laval
KeywordsFibromyalgiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVirtual realityVisual analogue scaleMovement (music)PsychologyAdaptation (eye)Physical therapyTask (project management)MedicineNeuroscienceComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with fibromyalgia (FM) have movement-related fear impacting on daily activities. While virtual reality has been used as a distractor to promote exercise, it can be used to manipulate visual feedback (VF) about movement, potentially influencing pain and movement. Objectives: A. To determine whether altered VF modulates pain during movement; B. To compare adaptation to an altered VF between FM participants and healthy controls (HC); C. To explore relationships between adaptation, limb position sense, kinesiophobia and pain. 20 FM participants and 20 HC performed a reaching task during two sessions in a KINARM exoskeleton including a virtual reality interface allowing to replace their arm with a virtual arm. In one session, VF was altered to show GREATER movements while in the other it showed SMALLER movements (randomized order). Pain was assessed periodically using a numerical rating scale. Movement amplitude was assessed during exposure to altered VF (adaptation) and pre-/post-exposure (without VF; after-effects). Limb position sense was assessed with a KINARM task, and kinesiophobia was assessed with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11). Pain intensity increased slightly with movement repetitions ( p < 0.001), but did not differ between the VF conditions (GREATER vs. SMALLER). Both groups exhibited visuomotor adaptation, as shown by VF-dependent changes in movement amplitude and speed during exposure to altered VF, and by the presence of VF-dependent after-effects ( p < 0.001 for all variables). However, no differences were observed across groups for any of these variables, despite the fact that FM had significantly more difficulty to correctly detect VF conditions than HC ( p = 0.046). No clear limb position sense deficits were observed in FM participants, and no significant relationships were found between TSK-11 scores and changes in pain intensity during exposure to altered VF. Altering VF did not influence pain during a reaching task in the FM group. Surprisingly, both groups adapted similarly to altered VF. Visuomotor adaptation is therefore preserved in FM, despite impairments in sensory perception and the poor ability to detect VF alterations in the present study. Further research is warranted to clarify the relationship between sensory perceptions and motor control in FM.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.284 · 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