Neuroscience evidence suggests that personalized, task-specific, high-intensity training is essential for maximizing recovery after acquired brain injury. Robotic devices combined with immersive virtual reality (VR) games, visualized through head-mounted displays (HMDs), can support such intensive training within naturalistic virtual environments with audio-visual stimuli tailored to individual needs. However, the impact of these auditory and visual demands on cognitive load remains an open question. To address this, we conducted an experiment with 22 healthy participants to explore how varying levels of visual, auditory, and cognitive demands affect users’ cognitive load and performance during a shopping task in immersive VR. We found that mental demand had the most significant impact on increasing cognitive load and hampering task performance. Visual demands, although affecting gaze behavior, did not significantly affect cognitive load or performance. Auditory demands showed small effects on cognitive load.

BACKGROUND: Head-mounted displays can be used to offer personalized immersive virtual reality (IVR) training for patients who have suffered an Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) by tailoring the complexity of visual and auditory stimuli to the patient's cognitive capabilities. However, it is still an open question how these virtual environments should be designed. METHODS: We used a human-centered design approach to help define the characteristics of suitable virtual training environments for ABI patients. We conducted (i) observations, (ii) interviews with eleven neurorehabilitation experts, and (iii) an online questionnaire with 24 neurorehabilitation experts to examine how therapists modify current training environments to promote patients' recovery in conventional sensorimotor neurorehabilitation settings. Finally, (iv) we involved eight neurorehabilitation experts in a participatory design workshop to co-create examples of IVR training environments. RESULTS: Five phases of the recovery process (Screening, Planning, Training, Reflecting, and Discharging) and six key themes describing the characteristics of suitable (physical) training environments (Specific, Meaningful, Versatile, Educational, Safe, and Supportive) were identified. The experts agreed that modulating the number of elements (e.g., objects, people) or distractions (e.g., background noise) in the physical training environment enables therapists to provide their patients with suitable conditions to execute functional tasks. Additionally, the experts highlighted the importance of developing IVR training environments that are meaningful and realistic. CONCLUSIONS: Through consultations with neurorehabilitation experts, we gained insights into how therapists adjust physical training environments to promote the execution of functional sensorimotor tasks in patients with diverse cognitive capabilities. Their recommendations on how to modulate and make IVR environments meaningful may contribute to increased motivation and skill transfer. Future studies on IVR-based neurorehabilitation should involve patients themselves.

Head-mounted displays can offer personalized immersive virtual reality (VR) training for patients who have suffered an Acquired Brain Injury by tailoring the complexity of visual and auditory stimuli to their cognitive capabilities. However, how these virtual environments should be designed remains undetermined. We conducted a participatory design workshop with eight neurorehabilitation experts to collect their opinions on using immersive VR-based neurorehabilitation and co-create examples of low and high-cognitively demanding immersive virtual training environments. Participants highlighted the importance of developing meaningful and realistic environments. This study provides an example of a high-tech co-creation workshop whose results provide insights into designing training environments in immersive VR to meet patients’ needs.

To design effective rehabilitative technology, stakeholders (e.g., professionals from hospitals, universities, and industries) must empathize with end-user experiences and actively involve them throughout the design process. This approach can ensure the understanding of their complex needs. Yet end-user involvement is often limited to testing only. Technology developers often underestimate the valuable insights end-users gain during their recovery, which extend beyond technical knowledge. To address this, our international team of designers, engineers, and clinical personnel proposes a participatory design workshop involving acquired brain injury patients and their caregivers. Patients and caregivers work in groups with workshop participants to address specific needs and use methods like personas, MoSCoW prioritization, and prototyping to co-create solutions to meet those needs. We aim to illustrate the benefits of this approach and encourage participants to adopt participatory design in their future developments.

Purpose: Virtual Reality (VR) has proven to be an effective tool for motor (re)learning. Furthermore, with the current commercialization of low-cost head-mounted displays (HMDs), immersive virtual reality (IVR) has become a viable rehabilitation tool. Nonetheless, it is still an open question how immersive virtual environments should be designed to enhance motor learning, especially to support the learning of complex motor tasks. An example of such a complex task is triggering steps while wearing lower-limb exoskeletons as it requires the learning of several sub-tasks, e.g., shifting the weight from one leg to the other, keeping the trunk upright, and initiating steps. This study aims to find the necessary elements in VR to promote motor learning of complex virtual gait tasks. Methods: In this study, we developed an HMD-IVR-based system for training to control wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for people with sensorimotor disorders. The system simulates a virtual walking task of an avatar resembling the sub-tasks needed to trigger steps with an exoskeleton. We ran an experiment with forty healthy participants to investigate the effects of first- (1PP) vs. third-person perspective (3PP) and the provision (or not) of concurrent visual feedback of participants’ movements on the walking performance – namely number of steps, trunk inclination, and stride length –, as well as the effects on embodiment, usability, cybersickness, and perceived workload. Results: We found that all participants learned to execute the virtual walking task. However, no clear interaction of perspective and visual feedback improved the learning of all sub-tasks concurrently. Instead, the key seems to lie in selecting the appropriate perspective and visual feedback for each sub-task. Notably, participants embodied the avatar across all training modalities with low cybersickness levels. Still, participants’ cognitive load remained high, leading to marginally acceptable usability scores. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that to maximize learning, users should train sub-tasks sequentially using the most suitable combination of person’s perspective and visual feedback for each sub-task.