Virtual reality and cognitive rehabilitation for older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual Reality (VR) has been gaining increasing attention as a potential ecological and effective intervention system for treating Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). However, it remains unclear the efficacy and effectiveness of VR-based cognitive rehabilitation therapy (VR-CRT) in comparison with cognitive rehabilitation therapy (CRT). Consequently, a systematic review on Pubmed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Web Of Science was conducted to assess the state of the art of the literature published between 2003 and April 2023. Only articles that adopted CRT as control group and that included some measure of at least one domain among overall cognitive function, executive function and functional status were included. Participants needed to be older adults aged 65 or over with a diagnosis of MCI. The risk of bias and the quality of evidence were assessed using the Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Initially, 6503 records were considered and screened after removing duplicates (n = 1321). Subsequently, 81 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Four articles met the inclusion criteria but 2 of them were merged as they were describing different outcomes of the same research project. Consequently, 3 overall studies with a total of 130 participants were included in the final analysis. Due to the high heterogeneity in the methodology and outcome measures employed, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Included studies used semi-immersive (k = 2) and full-immersive (k = 1) VR systems in their research. Two articles evaluated overall cognitive function through the MoCA together with specific tests for executive functions (n = 69), while one study adopted a comprehensive neuropsychological battery to evaluate both cognitive function and executive function (n = 61). Finally, one study evaluated functional status through instrumental activities of daily living (n = 34). A However, the limited number of studies, the small sample size, and the potential issues with the quality and methodology of these studies that emerged from the risk of bias assessment may raise doubts about the reliability of their results. Nevertheless, although scarce, results of the present review suggest that VR-CRT may be paramount in treating MCI for its additional ecological and adaptive advantages, as all of the studies highlighted that it was at least as effective as conventional CRT for all the outcome measures. Therefore, more rigorous research that compares VR-CRT and CRT is needed to understand the degree to which VR-CRT is effective with older adults with MCI and the potential role of immersion to influence its efficacy. Indeed, these preliminary findings highlight the need for the development of standardized VR protocols, as the integration of such technology into clinical practice may help improve the quality of life and cognitive outcomes for this growing demographic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".