This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Edmans, J. Articles by Thomas, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Edmans, J. Articles by Thomas, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Clinical evaluation of a non-immersive virtual environment in stroke rehabilitation

Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham, judi.edmans{at}nottingham.ac.uk

John Gladman

Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham

Dave Hilton

VIRART, University of Nottingham

Marion Walker

Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham

Alan Sunderland

School of Psychology, University of Nottingham

Sue Cobb

VIRART, University of Nottingham

Tony Pridmore

School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham

Shirley Thomas

Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham

Background and purpose: We describe our attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual environment developed to rehabilitate stroke patients in the task of making a hot drink.

Methods: Single case studies were performed in 13/138 (9%) stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation in a UK stroke unit. Participants in AB/BA (n = 5) and ABA (n = 2) design studies received 5 one-hour sessions of attention control training (A phase) and 5 one-hour sessions of virtual environment training (B phase). An AB design with random duration of A and B phases (minimum duration of A and B phases 3 and 5 days respectively, with total duration of 3 weeks) was used in 6 participants.

Results: Visual inspection of scores across all cases showed a trend towards improvement over time in both real and virtual hot drink making ability in both control and intervention phases. There was no significant difference (Wilcoxon, p > 0.05) in the improvements in real and virtual hot drink making ability during all control and intervention phases in the 13 cases. Ceiling effects limited the evaluation of effectiveness in 5 of the 8 cases in which daily performance measures were used.

Conclusions: Few people in this setting were suitable for this intervention. The case studies showed no evidence of a strong effect of this intervention, but we had great difficulty in performing single case studies. We conclude that more testing and development of this system is required before it is subjected to rigorous testing of clinical effectiveness.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, No. 2, 106-116 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508095875


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?