Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Commentary
  • Open Access

Virtual reality experiences, embodiment, videogames and their dimensions in neurorehabilitation

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation201815:113

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0461-0

  • Received: 11 June 2018
  • Accepted: 12 November 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

In the context of stroke rehabilitation, new training approaches mediated by virtual reality and videogames are usually discussed and evaluated together in reviews and meta-analyses. This represents a serious confounding factor that is leading to misleading, inconclusive outcomes in the interest of validating these new solutions.

Main body

Extending existing definitions of virtual reality, in this paper I put forward the concept of virtual reality experience (VRE), generated by virtual reality systems (VRS; i.e. a group of variable technologies employed to create a VRE). Then, I review the main components composing a VRE, and how they may purposely affect the mind and body of participants in the context of neurorehabilitation. In turn, VRS are not anymore exclusive from VREs but are currently used in videogames and other human-computer interaction applications in different domains. Often, these other applications receive the name of virtual reality applications as they use VRS. However, they do not necessarily create a VRE. I put emphasis on exposing fundamental similarities and differences between VREs and videogames for neurorehabilitation. I also recommend describing and evaluating the specific features encompassing the intervention rather than evaluating virtual reality or videogames as a whole.

Conclusion

This disambiguation between VREs, VRS and videogames should help reduce confusion in the field. This is important for databases searches when looking for specific studies or building metareviews that aim at evaluating the efficacy of technology-mediated interventions.

Keywords

  • Virtual reality
  • Virtual reality experience
  • Virtual reality system
  • Videogames
  • Virtual embodiment
  • Neurorehabilitation

Background

In the context of stroke rehabilitation, new training approaches mediated by virtual reality and videogames are usually discussed and evaluated together in reviews and meta-analyses for upper limb [1, 2], and balance and gait [3]. Certainly, the expected superiority of virtual reality over conventional therapy post stroke has been questioned when using off-the-shelf (e.g., Nintendo Wii) or ad-hoc videogames. This conclusion, however, is based on the wrong assumption that videogames deliver same experiences than virtual reality applications. In my opinion, this represents a serious confounding factor that may lead to misleading, inconclusive outcomes in the interest of validating these new solutions. Indeed, in Laver’s Cochrane article, a positive effect for virtual reality versus conventional therapy for improving upper limb function post stroke is found only when dedicated virtual reality based interventions, i.e. specifically designed for rehabilitation settings, are used. The effect vanishes when standard off-the-shelf videogames are considered. Indeed, the use of Nintendo Wii (but referring to it as virtual reality) often leads to a non-inferiority clinical outcome, being as effective as conventional therapy [4] or alternative playful interventions such as playing cards [5]. In another study with mobile-based and dedicated games (again referred to as virtual reality), partial functional and motor improvements were observed as compared to standard occupational therapy [6].

This heterogeneity in the reported virtual reality and videogames studies for neurorehabilitation calls for use of appropriate labelling for the approaches and variables assessed. A correct identification of the specific factors (and their weight) contributing to any eventual change post treatment are required for interpreting those changes and building further evidence on the specific solution. Therefore, in this paper I propose to reframe the traditional interpretation of the term virtual reality. I advocate disentangling two conceptual components that may help the field standardize its use: virtual reality experience (VRE) and virtual reality systems (VRS). I put emphasis on exposing fundamental similarities and differences between VREs and videogames, often mistakenly used as synonyms or exchangeable terms despite the different underlying interventional techniques and brain mechanisms they can enable. I then use neurorehabilitation as exemplary application field to discuss the implications of differentiating between them.

Main text

The evolving concept of virtual reality

Virtual Reality is likely today’s most powerful experiential technology available, i.e. a technology able to create immersive live experiences. Historically, virtual reality has been defined in terms of technological hardware, typically referring to computer-generated 3D realities implemented with stereoscopic displays and, sometimes, haptic gloves (see review in [7]). Soon, its definition evolved to include presence as the main characteristic and vividness measure of the experience [8].

As other forms of interaction with the virtual worlds were integrated into the setups, more generic definitions of virtual reality have been proposed. Weiss and colleagues wrote that “Virtual reality typically refers to the use of interactive simulations created with computer hardware and software to present users with opportunities to engage in environments that appear to be and feel similar to real-world objects and events” [9].

When used in applied neuroscience, definitions of virtual reality put additional focus on the multisensory stimulation. For instance, Henderson defined virtual reality as a “computer based, interactive, multisensory environment that occurs in real time” [10]. Here virtual reality enables the use of multisensory stimulations (visual, auditory, tactile, smell, kinesthetic, proprioceptive) to generate illusory realities, mostly related to the self (and body), in order to get the mind to believe (and accept) the virtual as real: “Virtual reality system components work in concert to create sensory illusions that produce a more or less believable simulation of reality” [11]. Slater has summarized these aspects to state that virtual reality is different from other forms of human–computer interface since the human “participates in the virtual world rather than uses it” [12].

Today, virtual reality has become a medium in itself, able to generate unique experiences. In turn, systems and technologies initially developed for virtual reality are nowadays being used in an increasing range of human-computer interaction forms in different domains (gaming, industry, training, healthcare, etc.). As the acceptance and use of virtual reality is spreading across disciplines, it is not surprising that the interpretation of the notion of virtual reality varies from one field to another, or even among different stakeholders within the same field. There is, thus, a danger of conceptual reductionism that creates wrong expectations that may lead to results misinterpretations of its use.

Virtual reality experiences

A VRE is composed of a set of qualities that make the experience more or less real. Although the minimal requirements to experience a VRE are not fully defined yet, based on the literature I identify at least four groups of interrelated contributors: (i) immersion, (ii) interaction, (iii) sensorimotor contingencies and, as consequence of these, (iv) illusions.

Immersion

Immersion is most likely the first associated term to VREs. In virtual reality, nowadays the main contribution to technological immersion comes from how visual information is provided. Immersion, however, is not just a question of display type, size and field of view, and it can be enhanced by adding other sensory cues (e.g. auditory, tactile). Indeed, immersion is not specific to electronic displays. For instance, a book can provide a certain level of engagement by which readers mentally visualizing the described world or identifying with the protagonists’ fears or pain can experience certain level of immersion [13]. However, to elevate the reading experience to the VRE category, other elements like sensorimotor contingencies and illusions are required.

Interaction

The initial feelings generated after exposure to a new immersive environment (virtual or other) may equally vanish if this immersion is not fed by sensorimotor contingencies provided by natural and meaningful interaction with the environment. Natural interaction in VREs starts with visual exploration of the space. For instance, when using a head-mounted display (HMD) with integrated head tracker and turning the head around, participants can explore the virtual world as they would do in the real world. The level of interaction increases every time the system responds to the participants’ action, e.g. a virtual human looks back to the participant when she/he turns the gaze to the avatar. If a virtual representation of their body is included in the experience, when reaching to a virtual object, participants will expect the virtual arm to touch it and they will expect to feel its texture, shape and weight (e.g., with aid of a haptic data glove). When this tactile dimension is provided, the visuomotor interaction is enhanced with a new piece of congruent sensory information.

More elaborate ways of interaction may be provided by means of brain or other bodily inputs, mainly via brain-computer interaction and biofeedback, which enable participants to navigate through a virtual environment [14] or, for instance, to see their respiration reproduced by the chest movements of a virtual body in a synchronous fashion to enhance self-identification with the virtual body [15]. In another example of the use of visualization of interoceptive signals, Aspell and colleagues proposed synchronous cardio-visual stimulation, with a virtual body flashing in synchrony with participant’s heartbeats, to increase self-identification with the virtual body [16].

Sensorimotor contingencies

Sensorimotor contingencies refer to the actions that we carry out to perceive the world [17]. In VREs, they are often provided by our interaction with the environment, e.g. when leaning forward trying to see what there is hidden behind an object. Sensorimotor contingencies are directly involved in the generation of the sense of agency, i.e. the experience of being the author and initiator of our own actions [18]. This is particularly important for our body interaction with the world in VREs. For instance, our perception of the virtual world depends on the congruence between our actions and the sensory feedback resulting from them, e.g. we feel the stiffness of the virtual object that our virtual body representation is touching.

The spatio-temporal correlation of the concurrent multisensory stimuli represents a critical factor for the nervous system to interpret the environment [19]. Arbitrary spatio-temporal discrepancies created artificially in a VRE can also be used to facilitate activation of targeted brain networks to study specific pathological conditions or to potentially speed up the recovery process in rehabilitation settings (see [20] for a review).

Illusions

Illusion is defined as “an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience” [21]. Within this context, VREs encompass a series of perceptual illusions related to the space, the environment and the self. The more senses congruently involved (i.e. stimulated) during the interaction, the higher the strength of the illusions generated.

Presence, also called Place Illusion, is the psychological product of technological immersion [11]. Presence is commonly defined as “the feeling of being there” [8, 17]. An ideal VRE would provide the ultimate level of immersion, creating an illusion of full physical presence in real or imagined worlds. More recently, Slater has further analyzed the original concept of presence, distinguishing between place illusion and plausibility illusion, i.e. the illusion that what is apparently happening is really happening to you [17]. This includes the self as an intrinsic element of the experience, as participants stop being mere spectators or controllers (if control over the virtual world and its objects is enabled) to become actors of the new reality. Indeed, immersion provides the boundaries within which place illusion or presence can occur and can be characterized by the sensorimotor contingencies that they support [17].

VREs can modify, add and substitute actual sensory information from reality for the experience to “feel real” [22]. VREs can even propose to replace the own body with a virtual representation. The illusion of having (i.e. feeling as if real) a body in a VRE has been tagged as virtual embodiment. The investigation of the mechanisms and the consequences (physical, cognitive, and even legal) of manipulating body perception through bodily illusions is the ultimate goal of a dedicated research field in cognitive neuroscience that started with the “rubber hand illusion” [23] and that rapidly expanded to virtual body illusions [24, 25]. For instance, manipulations of the bodily self can be used to examine the brain mechanisms that support body perception and integration in healthy subjects [26] and in the context of diverse pathologies, ranging from eating disorders [27] to neuropathic pain in paraplegia [28].

This sense of embodiment has been suggested to consist of three illusory components: the sense of self-location, the sense of agency, and the sense of body ownership [29]. Several conceptual models have been proposed to address how our nervous system decides to accept a fake (e.g., rubber or virtual) body as being its own. A combination of Bayesian models characterizing bottom-up and top-down neural processes seems to explain bodily illusions obtained via VREs [26, 30, 31]. While the illusion of presence can be easily generated by simply exposing the participant to an immersive virtual environment, the illusions related to the own body (our physical link to the outside world) require higher levels of sensorimotor contingencies.

Plausibility, place and virtual embodiment illusions together are probably the key differentiation elements of VREs versus other existing media and experiences. Although virtual embodiment (i.e., having a virtual representation of the own body) is not a sine qua non condition to elicit strong VREs, when a participant looks down when wearing an HMD, they expect to see their (virtual) body. Therefore, the occurrence of embodiment presupposes a certain level of presence, sensorimotor contingencies and plausibility illusion. Indeed, while high levels of presence can be achieved with none or low embodiment level, e.g. using third-person perspective, virtual embodiment provided through first-person perspective enables more accurate interactions in the virtual world [32].

VRE metrics

Strategies to measure the quality and strength of VREs and their components are currently shifting from subjective scales (usually questionnaires) to more objective behavioral and neurophysiological measures. For instance, event-related brain potentials have been suggested as a non-subjective measure of virtual embodiment [33]. In that study, brain activity in the motor cortex and readiness potential negativity were observed when an embodied virtual hand was threatened (but not the real hand), which was associated with the intention of the participant to move away the threatened (virtual) hand to avoid harm. Other examples of bodily responses used to measure the illusions generated in VREs include changes in electro-dermal activity (galvanic skin response), pupil dilation or skin temperature (see summary in [34]). However, all these measures mostly represent indirect measures of the assessed element, as illusions like presence or body illusions are subjective experiences (qualia) arising from multisensory stimulation, which cannot be directly measured [17].

Virtual reality systems

VRS refers to a set of physical solutions or means to generate VREs. Historically, goggles or HMDs, motion capture and haptic gloves have been considered the identification signs for virtual reality. Gonzalez-Franco and Lanier recently suggested that the minimum instrumentation requirements to support illusory VREs should include continuously updated multisensory feedback (at least visual) with congruent sensorimotor contingencies to prevent violations of brain expectations [22]. Although stereoscopic 3D images displayed in highly immersive HMD are more effective in generating a strong and continuous VRE, wearing an HMD or 3D goggles does not guarantee having strong VREs unless the other components (interaction, sensorimotor contingencies, illusions) also take place. Conversely, VREs can also be experienced on flat screens despite their lower level of immersion.

Indeed, the recent new boom of virtual reality starting in 2012 is related to the mass-market arrival of two technologies initially developed for virtual reality applications: HMDs and, to a lesser extent, motion capture systems. HMDs can provide stereoscopic images for fully immersive experiences either isolating user’s vision from reality, which is occluded in the case of non-see-through HMDs, or displaying the surrounding world, e.g. using optical or video see-through HMDs for augmented and mixed reality. Motion capture represents a powerful tool to create visuomotor correlations between one’s own movements and those of an avatar. The gaming industry is particularly taking advantage of both technologies, in a field where interaction has been traditionally two-dimensional and non-natural (either with a simple mouse or with game controllers). In return, low-cost 3D motion tracking systems that were originally developed for gaming (Microsoft Kinect) and computer interaction (LeapMotion) are populating todays VRS, underlining an increasing confluence of these related fields.

By adding different VRS elements, the user can interact with the environment and its content (including persons) to increase the number and strength of sensorimotor contingencies. The more senses congruently involved (i.e. stimulated) in this interaction, the stronger the illusions generated. To integrate new interactions and sensorimotor contingencies into VREs, new tools are continuously widening the list of VRS components. Indeed, VRS have also borrowed advanced tools from other fields ranging from human- and brain-computer interaction, e.g. physiological signals for bio- and neurofeedback purposes, to neurostimulation techniques [35]. These signals can be used to measure different aspects of the VRE or to control exposure to adaptive virtual environments, e.g. for treatment of phobias or anxiety mitigation (see review in [36]). Slater and colleagues have recently published a guide with the technical and experimental building blocks required to generate powerful VREs, in particular embodiment illusions, ranging from motion capture to brain-computer interfaces [34].

Embodied VREs for neurorehabilitation

VREs enclose many advantages for healthcare applications, in particular for neurorehabilitation. VREs can deliver sensorimotor training able to engage brain motor and perceptual areas as body-related visual feedback (alone or in combination with other multisensory stimulation, e.g. tactile and auditory) can be provided in real time. VREs using embodied feedback allow for manipulations of a virtual body that could have implications for neurorehabilitation [37]. Indeed, a critical ability of VREs is the possibility to promote changes in the perception of the own body by means of an illusion of ownership of a virtual body. For instance, illusions based on multisensory correlations can be extremely useful to apply VRE-based mirror visual feedback [38] and action-observation therapy for motor rehabilitation post stroke [39]. A recent study has shown that chronic stroke participants are more sensitive to embodiment illusions than healthy controls, i.e. they experienced stronger body ownership and sense of agency towards the fake hand in the rubber hand illusion [40]. This augmented sensitivity in stroke patients opens the space to further manipulations, which may not fully correspond with reality. Indeed, movement reproduction by the virtual body does not need to necessarily match participant’s ones. For instance, the visual amplification of the movement of the paretic limb seems to promote its use in chronic stroke patients [41], which also translated to changes in clinical outcomes [42].

In a preliminary study with 18 healthy subjects, fMRI data recorded during exercising with a VRE-based rehabilitation system providing embodied feedback has revealed activation in brain regions associated with motor control and consistent with those related to the human mirror neuron system [43]. Authors observed activations of the left supplementary motor area, the inferior parietal lobe and the inferior frontal gyrus, which have been shown to be active during execution, imitation, observation or motor imagery of goal-directed movements using action observation [44].

Concerning the evaluation of effectiveness of VRE-based interventions post stroke, one of the main issues is that often standard clinical scales are inappropriate because they cannot disentangle true recovery from just compensation [45, 46]. In this regard, inherent components of VRS (e.g., motion capture) offer unique tools to quantify motor recovery after stroke. For instance, in a study with chronic stroke, Kitago and colleagues observed no improvement in motor control features (mainly arm and wrist trajectory analysis and errors captured by a robotic system) after intensive constraint-induced movement therapy despite standard clinical outcomes (Action Research Arm Test and Fugl-Meyer Assessment) reported significant improvements [47]. The accumulating evidence over the last decade has had its echo in the recently formed Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable, which is working on defining standards for stroke recovery and rehabilitation research. This panel of experts recommends that “recovery trials need to consider serially applied kinematic/kinetic measurements alongside clinical assessments to distinguish between restitution and compensation. A core set of kinetics and kinematic outcomes needs to be established” [45].

Videogames for neurorehabilitation

A field that is frequently confused or mixed up with virtual reality is that of videogames. A videogame is “a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display” [48]. A videogame in virtual reality, e.g. displayed in an HMD, is just “a traditional computer game – but displayed in a different medium” [12]. Indeed, the gaming industry has been the major driving force of virtual reality for its popularization.

The main advantage of videogames is their inherent capacity to motivate and enhance learning [49]. Videogames can foster learning at multiple levels (cognitive, navigation, concentration, physical) in both clinical and non-clinical populations [50]. When adapted for healthcare purposes, videogames – often called serious (video-) games – can help improve motor and cognitive conditions in different clinical populations [51, 52]. Particularly in motor rehabilitation, game-based interventions usually rely on exergames, i.e. games that involve physical exercise and that integrate motion-tracking technology (e.g. using Nintendo Wii Remotes or Microsoft Kinect) that enables interaction with the game and real-time feedback of user’s performance. It is worth nothing that not all VRS qualify for this purpose, even though they may be eligible to create interactive VRE. In particular, and depending on the targeted measure and tracked movement, low-cost motion tracking systems may not be accurate and/or reliable enough to serve as clinical outcome (see detailed reports in [53, 54]).

Interestingly, playing videogames can make structural changes in the brain, including gray matter increase and hippocampal formation, which could be used to counteract known risk factors in neurological disorders [55]. In addition, action videogames have been shown to be beneficial for a range of mental skills (including attention, faster processing of information, task switching and mental rotation) in healthy participants [56], and to improve visual acuity in the amblyopic eye [57].

The relationship between VRE, VRS and videogames

VREs often incorporate gamification elements (e.g., rewards), to mainly increase participant’s motivation, which represents an important element in training programs for (re-)learning tasks after brain damage [58]. And vice versa, more and more innovative videogames integrate VRS initially developed for VREs, typically HMDs, motion tracking technology or, more recently, physiological information (as in so-called neurogames, which use brain or muscle signals to control basic game features [59, 60]). However, VRE-intrinsic illusions like plausibility and virtual embodiment are usually lacking in standard videogames. In the particular case of neurorehabilitation, exergames provided through standard off-the-shelf console games, where subjects can for instance use their own movements and gestures to control the movements of a virtual character, does not necessarily deliver a VRE.

The fact of using VRS elements (e.g., motion tracking or HMD) for gaming may entail the belief that those games are virtual reality applications de facto. The key point is, however, whether the use of those VRS deliver a VRE in the terms defined above. And vice versa, an application that does not use motion tracking or HMD may still deliver a strong VRE provided that some of the illusions listed above take place. In other words, the fact of using an HMD, or other peripheral such as haptic devices, does not make the Pong or a soccer videogame a VRE. Similarly, 360° videos projected in an HMD may generate strong feelings of presence. However, if they do not provide active interaction mechanisms, their contribution to generate strong plausibility illusion and sensorimotor contingencies would be rather limited to the moments where the soccer ball comes out of the screen towards the position of the observer (the user). This illusion will break as soon as they try to hit it. In other words, in the absence of natural interaction elements, the user may mentally feel “there” (in the soccer court) but only as long as they do not intend to move. Another category is 3D animated films such as Avatar. Even if we could imagine an immersive experience by exploring the computer-generated imaginary world using HMD and head tracking, it would not necessarily deliver a VRE per se, unless spectators can interact with it.

Adding VRS can help elevate a videogame or film experience to the category of VRE, e.g. making the soccer videogame life-sized with the user being placed inside the game and becoming (and embodying) one of the players (or one of the Na'vi personages in the example of the Avatar film), i.e. actively participating in the virtual world exploiting the sensorimotor contingencies. Then, the conceptual boundaries between videogames, films and VREs may disappear towards highly immersive, gamified and embodied VREs. Within that context, VREs should be considered as a higher-level entity since VREs can integrate games but not vice versa (games can make use of VRS though).

Conclusion

In summary, in this short paper I have reviewed similarities, differences and synergies of VREs (virtual reality experiences), VRS (virtual reality systems) and videogames, with emphasis on neurorehabilitation. Despite the increasing link between VRS and videogames, distinction between VREs and videogames should be made when categorizing the kind of intervention. This is important for databases searches when looking for specific studies or building metareviews. Hence, I recommend a purposeful use of the term Virtual Reality Experience when the experience involves illusions, specially plausibility and virtual embodiment, irrespectively whether the experience is gamified or not. More importantly, when reporting on the effectiveness of VREs and/or videogames for neurorehabilitation, it is highly recommended describing and evaluating the specific features encompassing the intervention (e.g. role of mirror visual feedback, movement augmentation, motor-auditory coupling, virtual embodiment, etc.) rather than evaluating virtual reality or videogames as a whole. Finally, VRS fall under a different category than VREs and videogames: while the latter refer to the generated experience and content, VRS refer to the technology (mainly hardware) used to create those experiences and content. This disambiguation should help reduce confusion in a field where large univariable and well-controlled clinical trials are scarce.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Prof. Mel Slater, Prof. Andrea Serino and Gangadhar Garipelli for their feedback on the manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

DPM is a Senior Scientist investigating on neurotechnologies for healthcare, with special focus on virtual reality-based rehabilitation after brain damage.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

DPM is employee of MindMaze SA.

Glossary

Exergame: A game that involves physical exercise and that integrate motion-tracking technology (e.g., using Nintendo Wii Remotes or Microsoft Kinect) that enables interaction with the game and real-time feedback of user’s performance.

Immersion: Deep mental involvement in something [61]. In the context of virtual reality, and in a technical acceptation of the term, immersion is achieved by removing as many real-world sensations as possible and substituting these with the sensations corresponding to the virtual reality experience [62].

Plausibility illusion: The illusion that the scenario being depicted is actually occurring [17].

Presence: Commonly defined as “the feeling of being there” [8], presence is the psychological product of technological immersion. The level of presence is usually proportional to the level of immersion provided. Also referred to as Place Illusion [17].

Videogame: A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display [48].

Virtual embodiment: The illusion of having (i.e. feeling as if real) a body in a virtual reality experience.

Virtual reality experience: An experience on a virtual reality medium and composed of a set of qualities, including immersion, interaction, sensorimotor contingencies, and illusions.

Virtual reality system: A set of physical solutions or means to generate virtual reality experiences.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
MindMaze SA, Lausanne, Switzerland

References

  1. Laver KE, Lange B, George S, Deutsch JE, Saposnik G, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:CD008349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Lohse KR, Hilderman CGE, Cheung KL, Tatla S, der Loos HFMV. Virtual reality therapy for adults post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring virtual environments and commercial games in therapy. PLoS One. 2014;9:e93318.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Darekar A, McFadyen BJ, Lamontagne A, Fung J. Efficacy of virtual reality-based intervention on balance and mobility disorders post-stroke: a scoping review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2015;12. doi:http://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0035-3.Google Scholar
  4. da Silva Ribeiro NM, Ferraz DD, Pedreira É, Pinheiro Í, da Silva Pinto AC, Neto MG, et al. Virtual rehabilitation via Nintendo Wii® and conventional physical therapy effectively treat post-stroke hemiparetic patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015;22:299–305.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Saposnik G, Cohen LG, Mamdani M, Pooyania S, Ploughman M, Cheung D, et al. Efficacy and safety of non-immersive virtual reality exercising in stroke rehabilitation (EVREST): a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, controlled trial. The Lancet Neurology. 2016;15:1019–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi Y-H, Ku J, Lim H, Kim YH, Paik N-J. Mobile game-based virtual reality rehabilitation program for upper limb dysfunction after ischemic stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016;34:455–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun. 1992;42:73–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6:332–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Weiss PL, Rand D, Katz N, Kizony R. Video capture virtual reality as a flexible and effective rehabilitation tool. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1:12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levin M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14:52–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohil CJ, Alicea B, Biocca FA. Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:752–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Slater M, Sanchez-Vives MV. Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front Robot AI. 2016;3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074.
  13. Hsu C-T, Conrad M, Jacobs AM. Fiction feelings in Harry potter: haemodynamic response in the mid-cingulate cortex correlates with immersive reading experience. Neuroreport. 2014;25:1356–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Leeb R, Friedman D, Müller-Putz GR, Scherer R, Slater M, Pfurtscheller G. Self-paced (asynchronous) BCI control of a wheelchair in virtual environments: a case study with a tetraplegic. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/79642.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Groenegress C, Spanlang B, Slater M. The physiological mirror—a system for unconscious control of a virtual environment through physiological activity. Vis Comput. 2010;26:649–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Aspell JE, Heydrich L, Marillier G, Lavanchy T, Herbelin B, Blanke O. Turning body and self inside out: visualized heartbeats alter bodily self-consciousness and tactile perception. Psychol Sci. 2013;24:2445–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Slater M. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2009;364:3549–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Buhrmann T, Paolo ED. The sense of agency – a phenomenological consequence of enacting sensorimotor schemes. Phenom Cogn Sci. 2017;16:207–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartcher-O’Brien J. Multisensory integration of redundant and complementary cues. Diss. University of Oxford; 2012. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:592fa079-9fb7-469b-bffd-b84173a1bed5. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  20. Adamovich SV, Fluet GG, Tunik E, Merians AS. Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009;25:29.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Definition of illusion. Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/illusion. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  22. Gonzalez-Franco M, Lanier J. Model of illusions and virtual reality. Front Psychol. 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01125.
  23. Botvinick M, Cohen J. Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature. 1998;391:756.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenggenhager B, Tadi T, Metzinger T, Blanke O. Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science. 2007;317:1096–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Slater M, Pérez Marcos D, Ehrsson H, Sanchez-Vives MV. Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion. Front Hum Neurosci. 2008;2. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.006.2008.
  26. Kilteni K, Maselli A, Kording KP, Slater M. Over my fake body: body ownership illusions for studying the multisensory basis of own-body perception. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00141.
  27. Riva G. The key to unlocking the virtual body: virtual reality in the treatment of obesity and eating disorders. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:283–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Pozeg P, Palluel E, Ronchi R, Solcà M, Al-Khodairy A-W, Jordan X, et al. Virtual reality improves embodiment and neuropathic pain caused by spinal cord injury. Neurology. 2017;89:1894–903.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Kilteni K, Groten R, Slater M. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence Teleop Virt. 2012;21:373–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Blanke O, Slater M, Serino A. Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness. Neuron. 2015;88:145–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Samad M, Chung AJ, Shams L. Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian sensory inference. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0117178.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Gorisse G, Christmann O, Amato EA, Richir S. First- and third-person perspectives in immersive virtual environments: presence and performance analysis of embodied users. Front Robot AI. 2017;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00033.
  33. González-Franco M, Peck TC, Rodríguez-Fornells A, Slater M. A threat to a virtual hand elicits motor cortex activation. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232:875–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Spanlang B, Normand J-M, Borland D, Kilteni K, Giannopoulos E, Pomés A, et al. How to build an embodiment lab: achieving body representation illusions in virtual reality. Front Robot AI. 2014;1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2014.00009.
  35. Teo W-P, Muthalib M, Yamin S, Hendy AM, Bramstedt K, Kotsopoulos E, et al. Does a combination of virtual reality, neuromodulation and neuroimaging provide a comprehensive platform for neurorehabilitation? – a narrative review of the literature. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00284.
  36. Freeman D, Reeve S, Robinson A, Ehlers A, Clark D, Spanlang B, et al. Virtual reality in the assessment, understanding, and treatment of mental health disorders. Psychol Med. 2017;47:2393–400.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Perez-Marcos D, Solazzi M, Steptoe W, Oyekoya W, Frisoli A, Weyrich T, et al. A fully immersive set-up for remote interaction and neurorehabilitation based on virtual body ownership. Front Neurol. 2012;3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2012.00110.
  38. Garipelli G, Rossy T, Bellone M, Liakoni V, Perez-Marcos D, Kinzer H, et al. Neural mechanisms of upper limb virtual Mirror visual feedback (VR-MVF) in acute stroke: a single-case study. In: Annual meeting of American Society of Neurorehabilitation. San Diego (CA); 2016.Google Scholar
  39. Adamovich SV, August K, Merians A. Tunik E. a virtual reality-based system integrated with fmri to study neural mechanisms of action observation-execution: a proof of concept study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2009;27:209–23.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Llorens R, Borrego A, Palomo P, Cebolla A, Noé E, i Badia SB, et al. Body schema plasticity after stroke: subjective and neurophysiological correlates of the rubber hand illusion. Neuropsychologia. 2017;96:61–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Ballester BR, Nirme J, Duarte E, Cuxart A, Rodriguez S, Verschure P, et al. The visual amplification of goal-oriented movements counteracts acquired non-use in hemiparetic stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Ballester BR, Maier M. San Segundo Mozo RM, Castañeda V, duff a, M. J. Verschure PF. Counteracting learned non-use in chronic stroke patients with reinforcement-induced movement therapy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Prochnow D, Bermúdez i, Badia S, Schmidt J, Duff A, Brunheim S, Kleiser R, et al. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of visuomotor processing in a virtual reality-based paradigm: rehabilitation gaming system. Eur J Neurosci. 2013;37:1441–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Sale P, Franceschini M. Action observation and mirror neuron network: a tool for motor stroke rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;48:313–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:451–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Demers M, Levin MF. Do activity level outcome measures commonly used in neurological practice assess upper-limb movement quality? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:623–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Kitago T, Liang J, Huang VS, Hayes S, Simon P, Tenteromano L, et al. Improvement after constraint-induced movement therapy: recovery of Normal motor control or task-specific compensation? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:99–109.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Definition of video game. Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/video_game. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  49. Granic I, Lobel A, Engels RC. The benefits of playing video games. Am Psychol. 2014;69:66–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Stanmore E, Stubbs B, Vancampfort D, de Bruin ED, Firth J. The effect of active video games on cognitive functioning in clinical and non-clinical populations: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;78:34–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, Al-Hashimi O, Faraji F, Janowich J, et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature. 2013;501:97–101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Mishra J, Anguera JA, Gazzaley A. Video games for neuro-cognitive optimization. Neuron. 2016;90:214–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Webster D, Celik O. Systematic review of Kinect applications in elderly care and stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:108.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Galna B, Barry G, Jackson D, Mhiripiri D, Olivier P, Rochester L. Accuracy of the Microsoft Kinect sensor for measuring movement in people with Parkinson’s disease. Gait & Posture. 2014;39:1062–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Kühn S, Gleich T, Lorenz RC, Lindenberger U, Gallinat J. Playing super Mario induces structural brain plasticity: gray matter changes resulting from training with a commercial video game. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:265–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Bavelier D, Green CS. The brain-boosting power of video games. Sci Am. 2016;315:26–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Vedamurthy I, Nahum M, Huang SJ, Zheng F, Bayliss J, Bavelier D, et al. A dichoptic custom-made action video game as a treatment for adult amblyopia. Vis Res. 2015;114:173–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Levin MF, Weiss PL, Keshner EA. Emergence of virtual reality as a tool for upper limb rehabilitation: incorporation of motor control and motor learning principles. Phys Ther. 2015;95:415–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Rios DC, Gilbertson T, McCoy SW, Price R, Gutman K, Miller KEF, et al. NeuroGame therapy to improve wrist control in children with cerebral palsy: a case series. Dev Neurorehabil. 2013;16:398–409.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Lalor EC, Kelly SP, Finucane C, Burke R, Smith R, Reilly RB, et al. Steady-state VEP-based brain-computer Interface control in an immersive 3D gaming environment. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process. 2005;2005:706906.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Definition of immersion. Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/immersion. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  62. Mestre DR, Fuchs P. Immersion et présence. In: Traité de la Réalité Virtuelle. Third. Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des Mines; 2006. p. 309–38.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement