Skip to main content

Table 4 Included studies with physical performance as outcome measures reported by assessment and author

From: Trends in robot-assisted and virtual reality-assisted neuromuscular therapy: a systematic review of health-related multiplayer games


Outcome (physical performance)

Intervention (game)

Intervention (mode)


Feltz et al. 2012 [34]

1) heart rate

EyeToy: Kinetic on PlayStation 2, 5 different plank positions

a) low discrepancy partnered (1:1.01 in persistence) b) moderate discrepancy partnered (1:1.4 in persistence) c) high discrepancy partnered (1:2 in persistence) d) individual control

1) higher heart rate in partnered conditions (a, b, c) compared to individual control (d)

Ganesh et al. 2014 [27]

1) mean distance to target 2) learning (reduction of mean distance to target)

tracking task

absence of connection forces vs. presence of connection forces appearing as (a,c,d,e,f), control group (b) a) novice-novice interaction (20 participants) b) solo (10) c) force-playback (10) d) trajectory-playback (14) e) expert connect (10) f) target connect (10)

1) novice-novice interaction (a) improved the task performance whether the partner performance was better or worse than the individual performance; highest improvement with stiffness K=120 N/m compared to K=60 N/m or K=180 N/m; force-playback (c) significantly different to novice-novice interaction (a); trajectory-playback, expert connect and target connect (d,e,f) improved the task performance, but significantly less than novice-novice interaction (a); condition (a,c,d) affects behavior; partner performance affects behaviour; target connect (f) performance improvement less then expert connect(e) 2) novice-novice interaction (a) achieved significantly better performance intermittently interacting with a partner compared to solo (b) condition

Goršič et al. 2017 [31]

1) root-mean-square (RMS) value of hand velocity 2) mean absolute values of hand velocity


a) single-player game b) competitive game c) cooperative game with split field d) cooperative game with shared field

1) competitive play (b) higher RMS value than in other modes (a,c,d) 2) competitive play (b) higher mean absolute value of hand velocity than in other modes (a,c,d)

Goršič et al. 2017 [32]

1) root-mean-square (RMS) value of velocity

Pong Game

a) competition session 1 b) competition session 2 c) competition session 3 d) single-player

home rehabilitation group: 1) single-player (d) lower RMS than in other modes (a,b,c) clinical environment group: 1) no difference

Goršič et al. 2017 [33]

1) root-mean-square (RMS) of velocity

Pong game

a) no difficulty adaptation b) manual difficulty adaptation c) automatic difficulty adaptation

1) no statistical test

Johnson et al. 2008 [28]

1) game performance 2) total reach displacement 3) movement smoothness 4) peak velocity 5) movement time


a) single-player PC b) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera c) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera and audio d) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera, a user camera and audio

1) game performance influenced motivation 2) no significant difference between multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera (b) and multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera, a user camera and audio (d) 3) no significant difference between (b) and (d) 4) no significant difference between (b) and (d)

Mace et al. 2017 [29]

1) score 2) target tracking 3) stability 4) effort 5) smoothness


a) single-player b) dual-player

healthy-healthy experiment: 1) no significant difference 2) accuracy decreased in dual-player condition (b) compared to single-player (a) 3) no significant difference 4) playing with a better partner significantly reduces the effort for the worse performing partners and vice versa for the better partner 5) no significant difference patient-expert experiment: 1-3) patient improved in score, accuracy and stability4-5) little association between patient performance and the effect of dual-player mode (b) on effort or smoothness

Novak et al. 2014 [30]

1) game scores

Air hockey

a) single-player b) competitive Interaction c) cooperative Interaction

1) 19 of the 30 subjects scored higher than the computer in the single-player mode, on average scoring 2.0 points more than the computer in single-player (a); by definition, 15 subjects won and 15 lost in the competitive mode (b), with the mean difference between subjects of 17.7 points; all subjects scored higher than the computer in the cooperative mode (c), with each pair on average winning by 16.3 points

Peng and Crouse 2013 [35]

1) physical exertion

Space Pop mini-game in Kinetic Adventures

a) single-player b) cooperate with friend or stranger; same space c) compete with a friend or stranger; separate spaces

1) significant more physical exertion in single-player (a) than cooperative mode (b); no significant difference between single-player (a) and competitive group (c)

Peng and Hsieh 2012 [36]

1) game performance

Balloon Popping game

a) compete with friend b) compete with stranger c) cooperate with friend d) cooperate with stranger

1) no effect in performance regarding mode (competition a, b versus cooperation c, d) or relationship (friend a, c versus stranger b, d)

Staiano et al. 2012 [25]

1) energy expenditure dependency on subsets of intrinsic motivation (sensory immersion, control/choice, challenge/optimal difficulty, goal setting, and feedback) and psychological attraction

Nintendo Wii Exergame: “The Wii Active game”

a) cooperative interaction b) competitive Interaction

1) high levels of intrinsic motivation due to control/choice predicted high amounts of energy expenditure (a, b); high levels of motivation due to goal setting and sensory immersion predicted lower amounts of energy expenditure; psychological attraction to game play did not significantly predict energy expenditure

Staiano et al. 2013 [26]

1) weight change

Nintendo Wii Active Exergame

a) competitive exergame b) cooperative exergame c) control group (no exergaming)

1) cooperative group (b) lost significantly more weight than the control group (c), competitive group (a) did not significantly differ from the other groups (b, c)

Verhoeven et al. 2015 [24]

1) energy expenditure

Kinect Sports (boxing, bowling, tennis, baseball, golf), Just Dance 3

a) single-player mode b) two-player mode

1) children consumed more energy in a two-player mode (b) than in a single-player mode (a); no sex differences were found; children consumed significantly more energy in a two-player mode (b) when playing boxing, tennis, and dancing and vice versa when bowling