Comparing adaptive cognitive training in virtual reality and paper-pencil in a sample of stroke patients

A. L. Faria, T. Paulino, S. Badia
{"title":"Comparing adaptive cognitive training in virtual reality and paper-pencil in a sample of stroke patients","authors":"A. L. Faria, T. Paulino, S. Badia","doi":"10.1109/ICVR46560.2019.8994746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growing number of people with cognitive deficits creates an urgent need for new cognitive training solutions. Paper-and-pencil tasks are still widely used for cognitive rehabilitation despite the proliferation of new computer-based methods, like VR-based simulations of ADL’s. The health professionals’ resistance in adopting new tools might be explained by the small number of validation trials. Studies have established construct validity of VR assessment tools with their paper-and-pencil versions by demonstrating significant associations with their traditional construct-driven measures. However, adaptive rehabilitation tools for intervention are mostly not equivalent to their counterpart paper-and-pencil versions, which makes it difficult to carry out comparative studies. Here we present a 12-session intervention study with 31 stroke survivors who underwent different rehabilitation protocols based on the same content and difficulty adaptation progression framework: 17 performed paper-and-pencil training with the Task Generator and 14 performed VR-based training with the Reh@City. Results have shown that both groups performed at the same level and there was not an effect of the training methodology in overall performance. However, the Reh@City enabled more intensive training, which may translate in more cognitive improvements.","PeriodicalId":179905,"journal":{"name":"2019 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR)","volume":"87 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR46560.2019.8994746","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The growing number of people with cognitive deficits creates an urgent need for new cognitive training solutions. Paper-and-pencil tasks are still widely used for cognitive rehabilitation despite the proliferation of new computer-based methods, like VR-based simulations of ADL’s. The health professionals’ resistance in adopting new tools might be explained by the small number of validation trials. Studies have established construct validity of VR assessment tools with their paper-and-pencil versions by demonstrating significant associations with their traditional construct-driven measures. However, adaptive rehabilitation tools for intervention are mostly not equivalent to their counterpart paper-and-pencil versions, which makes it difficult to carry out comparative studies. Here we present a 12-session intervention study with 31 stroke survivors who underwent different rehabilitation protocols based on the same content and difficulty adaptation progression framework: 17 performed paper-and-pencil training with the Task Generator and 14 performed VR-based training with the Reh@City. Results have shown that both groups performed at the same level and there was not an effect of the training methodology in overall performance. However, the Reh@City enabled more intensive training, which may translate in more cognitive improvements.
比较脑卒中患者在虚拟现实和纸笔中的适应性认知训练
越来越多的认知缺陷患者迫切需要新的认知训练解决方案。尽管基于计算机的新方法(如基于vr的ADL模拟)层出不穷,纸笔任务仍被广泛用于认知康复。卫生专业人员在采用新工具方面的阻力可能是由于验证试验数量较少。研究已经建立了虚拟现实评估工具的纸笔版本的结构效度,通过展示其与传统的结构驱动措施的显着关联。然而,用于干预的适应性康复工具大多不等同于相应的纸笔版本,这使得很难进行比较研究。在此,我们对31名中风幸存者进行了12期干预研究,他们接受了基于相同内容和难度适应进展框架的不同康复方案:17人使用任务生成器进行纸笔训练,14人使用Reh@City进行基于vr的训练。结果表明,两组表现在同一水平,并没有影响的训练方法在整体表现。然而,Reh@City允许更密集的训练,这可能转化为更多的认知改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信