Effects of Virtual Reality (VR) for Cognitive Rehabilitation in Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability, significantly impacting cognitive functions such as memory, attention, and executive functioning in survivors. Traditional cognitive rehabilitation methods have limitations, necessitating innovative approaches like virtual reality (VR) to enhance recovery.Objective: To determine the effects of VR-based cognitive rehabilitation in stroke survivors compared to traditional methods.Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at Mian Medical Complex from October 2023 to August 2024, involving 24 stroke survivors aged 40-80 years with cognitive impairments. Participants were randomly assigned to either the VR group, receiving 30-minute sessions three times weekly for 12 weeks, or the control group, receiving traditional cognitive rehabilitation. Cognitive functions were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test (TMT), and Digit Span Test. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.Results: The VR group showed significant improvements in MoCA scores (22.3 ± 3.5 to 25.0 ± 2.8, p < 0.01), TMT Part A (50.2 ± 10.3 to 45.6 ± 9.2 seconds, p < 0.05), and Digit Span Test (6.4 ± 1.2 to 7.2 ± 1.0, p < 0.01), whereas the control group showed minimal changes.Conclusion: VR-based cognitive rehabilitation significantly improves cognitive functions in stroke survivors and offers a more engaging alternative to traditional methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".