Immersive Virtual Reality‐Based Rehabilitation for Upper Limb Recovery in Acute and Subacute Stroke Patients: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Immersive virtual reality (IVR)-based rehabilitation provides high-intensity, engaging, task-oriented training and motor exploration for upper limb (UL) recovery post-stroke. However, its feasibility and dose-response in acute and subacute stroke patients remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and dose-response of IVR-based rehabilitation for post-stroke UL recovery. METHODS: A pilot trial included 12 acute and subacute stroke patients (mean age 59.8 ± 14.2 years) with upper limb impairment randomized into two groups: Group A (10 IVR sessions + conventional rehabilitation [CR]) and Group B (20 IVR sessions + CR). Feasibility outcomes included adherence, usability (User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire [USEQ], System Usability Scale [SUS]), system operability, and adverse effects. Motor outcomes, categorized by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), assessed UL impairment (Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Medical Research Council scale), activity (Box and Block Test), and participation (Motor Activity Log 30). Blinded therapists conducted assessments at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up. Dose-response was analyzed using Probability of Superiority (PS). RESULTS: Feasibility was high, reporting 98% adherence, favorable usability scores (USEQ: 81.6 ± 15; SUS: 77.5 ± 7.4), efficient setup time (5.14 ± 1.57 min), system stability (77.86 ± 6.78%) and no severe adverse effects. Clinically meaningful motor improvements were observed across all ICF domains in both groups. Although the sample size was insufficient for inferential testing, descriptive trends and PS values above 75% suggested a potential dose-response trend favoring higher IVR exposure. DISCUSSION: IVR-based rehabilitation showed high feasibility, safety, and improvements in motor recovery, with a dose-response trend favoring higher doses. These findings align with evidence that IVR enhances neuroplasticity-driven recovery through high-intensity, engaging, exploratory, and task-oriented upper limb training. Despite the small sample and brief follow-up, this study provides key data to guide larger trials on efficacy and optimal dosing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07086365, NCT07086365.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".