ReviewFrontiers in neurorobotics2024
Immersive interfaces for clinical applications: current status and future perspective.
Review in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond one-size-fits-all: sensory regulation and age-specific design in pediatric healthcare environments.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Reimagining paediatric care: technology, trust, and the global movement for child-centred innovation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- New Mixed Reality Headset: First Exploratory Use in Intraocular Surgery and Telementoring.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Neurosciences and Sports Rehabilitation in ACLR: A Narrative Review on Winning Alliance Strategies and Connecting the Dots.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- User Experience and Acceptability of a Digital Educational Game for Self-Management Health Education Among People Living with HIV.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality for Motor Neurorehabilitation: Scoping Review Focused on the Role of Body Representation.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital immersive technologies have become increasingly prominent in clinical research and practice, including medical communication and technical education, serious games for health, psychotherapy, and interfaces for neurorehabilitation. The worldwide enthusiasm for digital health and digital therapeutics has prompted the development and testing of numerous applications and interaction methods. Nevertheless, the lack of consistency in the approaches and the peculiarity of the constructed environments contribute to an increasing disparity between the eagerness for new immersive designs and the long-term clinical adoption of these technologies. Several challenges emerge in aligning the different priorities of virtual environment designers and clinicians. This article seeks to examine the utilization and mechanics of medical immersive interfaces based on extended reality and highlight specific design challenges. The transfer of skills from virtual to clinical environments is often confounded by perceptual and attractiveness factors. We argue that a multidisciplinary approach to development and testing, along with a comprehensive acknowledgement of the shared mechanisms that underlie immersive training, are essential for the sustainable integration of extended reality into clinical settings. The present review discusses the application of a multilevel sensory framework to extended reality design, with the aim of developing brain-centered immersive interfaces tailored for therapeutic and educational purposes. Such a framework must include broader design questions, such as the integration of digital technologies into psychosocial care models, clinical validation, and related ethical concerns. We propose that efforts to bridge the virtual gap should include mixed methodologies and neurodesign approaches, integrating user behavioral and physiological feedback into iterative design phases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.