Long-term Effectiveness and Adoption of a Cellphone Augmented Reality System on Patients with Stroke: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A serious game-based cellphone augmented reality system (CARS) was developed for rehabilitation of stroke survivors, which is portable, convenient, and suitable for self-training. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of CARS in improving upper limb motor function and cognitive function of stroke survivors via conducting a long-term randomized controlled trial and analyze the patient's acceptance of the proposed system. METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed with 30 poststroke, subacute phase patients. All patients in both the experimental group (n=15) and the control group (n=15) performed a 1-hour session of therapy each day, 5 days per week for 2 weeks. Patients in the experimental group received 30 minutes of rehabilitation training with CARS and 30 minutes of conventional occupational therapy (OT) each session, while patients in the control group received conventional OT for the full 1 hour each session. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) subscale, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), manual muscle test and Brunnstrom stage were used to assess motor function; the Mini-Mental State Examination, Add VS Sub, and Stroop Game were used to assess cognitive function; and the Barthel index was used to assess activities of daily living before and after the 2-week treatment period. In addition, the User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire was used to reflect the patients' adoption of the system in the experimental group after the final intervention. RESULTS: All the assessment scores of the experimental group and control group were significantly improved after intervention. After the intervention. The experimental group's FMA-UE and ARAT scores increased by 11.47 and 5.86, respectively, and were both significantly higher than the increase of the control group. Similarly, the score of the Add VS Sub and Stroop Game in the experimental group increased by 7.53 and 6.83, respectively, after the intervention, which also represented a higher increase than that in the control group. The evaluation of the adoption of this system had 3 sub-dimensions. In terms of accessibility, the patients reported a mean score of 4.27 (SD 0.704) for the enjoyment of their experience with the system, a mean 4.33 (SD 0.816) for success in using the system, and a mean 4.67 (SD 0.617) for the ability to control the system. In terms of comfort, the patients reported a mean 4.40 (SD 0.737) for the clarity of information provided by the system and a mean 4.40 (SD 0.632) for comfort. In terms of acceptability, the patients reported a mean 4.27 (SD 0.884) for usefulness in their rehabilitation and a mean 4.67 (0.617) in agreeing that CARS is a suitable tool for home-based rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The rehabilitation based on combined CARS and conventional OT was more effective in improving both upper limb motor function and cognitive function than was conventional OT. Due to the low cost and ease of use, CARS is also potentially suitable for home-based rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800017568; https://tinyurl.com/xbkkyfyz.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".