ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024
Cognitive Training Using Virtual Reality: An Assessment of Usability and Adverse Effects.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing Digital Cognitive Interventions to Active Controls and Usual Care for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Navigating Virtual Reality in Stroke Rehabilitation: Scoping Review of Diverse Intervention Effects.JMIR serious games · 2026Review
- The effectiveness of virtual reality to improve depression: A systematic evidence map.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the usability and adverse effects associated with virtual reality (VR) cognitive training and identify factors influencing them. Design: Survey-based observational study. Setting: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine in the hospital. Participants: Twenty rehabilitation professionals (mean [standard deviation] age; 30.0[4.8] years, men 8[40%], and women 12[60%]) and 10 patients with stroke (mean [SD] age; 64.1[13.6] years, men 2[20%] and women 8[80%]). Interventions: The participants wore a head-mounted display (Meta Quest2) and consecutively underwent 5 custom-designed cognitive training. Main Outcome Measures: After the training, participants completed 3 questionnaires: the systemic usability scale, user experience questionnaire (UEQ), and cybersickness in VR questionnaire. Results: The mean systemic usability scale score was 55.1 and 52.3 for rehabilitation professionals and patients, respectively. For the UEQ, the mean score for each item, including attractiveness, perspicuity, efficiency, dependability, stimulation, and novelty, were 0.9/0.2, 0.6/0.2, 0.5/-0.5, 1.2/0.8, 0.9/0.4, and 0.6/0.8 for rehabilitation professionals/patients, respectively. Rehabilitation professionals had slightly higher scores in most UEQ items. The mean cybersickness in VR questionnaire scores were 18.6 and 19.0 for rehabilitation professionals and patients, respectively. Conclusions: Participants reported moderate usability and a generally below-average user experience, with mild-to-moderate VR sickness during VR cognitive training. The rehabilitation professionals rated usability higher than the patient group, while patients experienced more severe VR sickness. These findings may serve as a significant insight for developing VR cognitive training for application to patients in the future.
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.