MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313472192 · doi:10.3390/brainsci13010079

Application of Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based Puzzle Games in Elderly Patients with Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment: A Pilot Study

2022· article· en· W4313472192 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhilan Liu, Zhijie He, Jing Yuan, Hua Lin, Conghui Fu, Yan Zhang, Nian Wang, Guo Li, Jing Bu, Mei Chen, Jie Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRehabilitationCognitionStroke (engine)Cognitive trainingDigit symbol substitution testMemory spanVerbal fluency testCognitive rehabilitation therapyTrail Making TestPsychologyVirtual realityPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTest (biology)FluencyAudiologyMedicineCognitive impairmentNeuropsychologyPsychiatryWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The society is aging in China, and the cognitive level of elderly post-stroke patients gradually declines. Face-to-face cognitive functional training is no longer sufficient. Immersive virtual reality (IVR) is a promising rehabilitation training device. In this study, we developed an IVR-based puzzle game to explore its effectiveness, feasibility, and safety in elderly stroke patients with cognitive dysfunction. Methods: A total of 30 patients with mild post-stroke cognitive impairment after stroke were randomly assigned to a control or IVR group. Patients in both groups received routine rehabilitation therapy. Patients in the control group received traditional cognitive training, and those in the IVR group received IVR-based puzzle game therapy. Before and after treatment, Montreal cognitive assessment (MOCA), trail-making test-A (TMT-A), digit symbol substitution test (DSST), digital span test (DST), verbal fluency test (VFT), and modified Barthel index (MBI) were evaluated in both groups. In addition, the IVR group was administered a self-report questionnaire to obtain feedback on user experience. Results: There was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. After six weeks of treatment, the cognitive assessment scores were improved in both groups. Moreover, the IVR group showed more improvements than the control group in the DSST (Z = 2.203, p = 0.028 < 0.05, η2 = 0.16); MOCA (T = 1.186, p = 0.246 > 0.05, d = 0.44), TMT-A (T = 1.791, p = 0.084 > 0.05, d = 0.65), MBI (T = 0.783, p = 0.44 > 0.05, d = 0.28), FDST (Z = 0.78, p = 0.435 > 0.05, η2 = 0.02), BDST (Z = 0.347, p = 0.728 > 0.05, η2 = 0.004), and VFT(Z = 1.087, p = 0.277 > 0.05, η2 = 0.039) did not significantly improve. The significant difference in DSST represents an improvement in executive function and visual−spatial cognitive characteristics. The other assessment scores did not show such features. Therefore, we did not observe significant differences through this measure. According to the results of the self-report questionnaire, most of the patients were satisfied with the equipment stability and training content. Several individuals reported mild adverse reactions. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that IVR-based puzzle games are a promising approach to improve post-stroke cognitive function, especially executive cognitive function, and visual−spatial attention in older adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations63
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207