Background: The relearning of movements after brain injury can be optimized by providing intensive, meaningful, and motivating training using virtual reality (VR). However, most current solutions use two-dimensional (2D) screens, where patients interact via symbolic representations of their limbs (e.g., a cursor). These 2D screens lack depth cues, potentially deteriorating movement quality and increasing cognitive load. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) have great potential to provide naturalistic movement visualization by incorporating improved depth cues, reduce visuospatial transformations by rendering movements in the space where they are performed, and preserve eye-hand coordination by showing an avatar—with immersive VR (IVR)—or the user’s real body—with augmented reality (AR). However, elderly populations might not find these novel technologies usable, hampering potential motor and cognitive benefits. Methods: We compared movement quality, cognitive load, motivation, and system usability in twenty elderly participants (>59 years old) while performing a dual motor-cognitive task with different visualization technologies: IVR HMD, AR HMD, and a 2D screen. We evaluated participants’ self-reported cognitive load, motivation, and usability using questionnaires. We also conducted a pilot study with five brain-injured patients comparing the visualization technologies while using an assistive device. Results: Elderly participants performed straighter, shorter duration, and smoother movements when the task was visualized with the HMDs than screen. The IVR HMD led to shorter duration movements than AR. Movement onsets were shorter with IVR than AR, and shorter for both HMDs than the screen, potentially indicating facilitated reaction times due to reduced cognitive load. No differences were found in the questionnaires regarding cognitive load, motivation, or usability between technologies in elderly participants. Both HMDs proved high usability in our small sample of patients. Conclusions: HMDs are a promising technology to be incorporated into neurorehabilitation, as their more naturalistic movement visualization improves movement quality compared to conventional screens. HMDs demonstrate high usability, without decreasing participants’ motivation, and might potentially lower cognitive load. Our preliminary clinical results suggest that brain-injured patients may especially benefit from more immersive technologies. However, larger patient samples are needed to draw stronger conclusions.**

@en

Combining immersive virtual reality (VR) using head-mounted displays (HMDs) with assisting robotic devices might be a promising procedure to enhance neurorehabilitation. However, it is still an open question how immersive virtual environments (VE) should be designed when interacting with rehabilitation robots. In conventional training, the robot is usually not visually represented in the VE, resulting in a visuo-haptic sensory conflict between what users see and feel. This study aimed to investigate how motivation, embodiment, and presence are affected by this visuo-haptic sensory conflict. Using an HMD and a rehabilitation robot, 28 healthy participants performed a path-tracing task, while the robot was either visually reproduced in the VE or not and while the robot either assisted the movements or not. Participants’ performance and visual attention were measured during the tasks, and after each visibility/assistance condition, they reported their motivation, presence, and embodiment with questionnaires. We found that, independently of the assistance, the robot visibility did not affect participants’ motivation, presence, embodiment, nor task performance. We only found a greater effort/importance reported when the robot was visible. The visual attention was also slightly affected by the robot’s visibility. Importantly, we found that the robotic assistance hampered presence and embodiment, but improved motivation. Our results indicate no disadvantage of not reproducing robotic devices in VEs when using HMDs. However, caution must be put when developing assisting controllers, as they might hamper users’ affect.

@en

Virtual reality (VR) is a promising tool to promote motor (re)learning in healthy users and brain-injured patients. However, in current VR-based motor training, movements of the users performed in a three-dimensional space are usually visualized on computer screens, televisions, or projection systems, which lack depth cues (2D screen), and thus, display information using only monocular depth cues. The reduced depth cues and the visuospatial transformation from the movements performed in a three-dimensional space to their two-dimensional indirect visualization on the 2D screen may add cognitive load, reducing VR usability, especially in users suffering from cognitive impairments. These 2D screens might further reduce the learning outcomes if they limit users’ motivation and embodiment, factors previously associated with better motor performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of more immersive technologies using head-mounted displays (HMDs). As a first step towards potential clinical implementation, we ran an experiment with 20 healthy participants who simultaneously performed a 3D motor reaching and a cognitive counting task using: (1) (immersive) VR (IVR) HMD, (2) augmented reality (AR) HMD, and (3) computer screen (2D screen). In a previous analysis, we reported improved movement quality when movements were visualized with IVR than with a 2D screen. Here, we present results from the analysis of questionnaires to evaluate whether the visualization technology impacted users’ cognitive load, motivation, technology usability, and embodiment. Reports on cognitive load did not differ across visualization technologies. However, IVR was more motivating and usable than AR and the 2D screen. Both IVR and AR rea ched higher embodiment level than the 2D screen. Our results support our previous finding that IVR HMDs seem to be more suitable than the common 2D screens employed in VR-based therapy when training 3D movements. For AR, it is still unknown whether the absence of benefit over the 2D screen is due to the visualization technology per se or to technical limitations specific to the device.

@en

In immersive virtual reality, the own body is often visually represented by an avatar. This may induce a feeling of body ownership over the virtual limbs. Importantly, body ownership and the motor system share neural correlates. Yet, evidence on the functionality of this neuroanatomical coupling is still inconclusive. Findings from previous studies may be confounded by the congruent vs. incongruent multisensory stimulation used to modulate body ownership. This study aimed to investigate the effect of body ownership and congruency of information on motor performance in immersive virtual reality. We aimed to modulate body ownership by providing congruent vs. incongruent visuo-tactile stimulation (i.e., participants felt a brush stroking their real fingers while seeing a virtual brush stroking the same vs. different virtual fingers). To control for congruency effects, unimodal stimulation conditions (i.e., only visual or tactile) with hypothesized low body ownership were included. Fifty healthy participants performed a decision-making (pressing a button as fast as possible) and a motor task (following a defined path). Body ownership was assessed subjectively with established questionnaires and objectively with galvanic skin response (GSR) when exposed to a virtual threat. Our results suggest that congruency of information may decrease reaction times and completion time of motor tasks in immersive virtual reality. Moreover, subjective body ownership is associated with faster reaction times, whereas its benefit on motor task performance needs further investigation. Therefore, it might be beneficial to provide congruent information in immersive virtual environments, especially during the training of motor tasks, e.g., in neurorehabilitation interventions.@en