VR for rehabilitation

Core reading

Presence in VR therapy/training (Rothbaum et al, 1995)

• High presence is more effective for training & therpay tahn for communication & entertainment

• headsets should be chosen with specific purpose

Self-avatars influence behaviour (Yee & Bailenson, 2007)

• avatar choice matters → even if not intended to study avatars, it will impact the results

• VR apps that place users in avatars can influence ones attitudes and behaviour overtime 

VR for procedural training (Moreno & Mayer, 2002)

• individuals may struggle with cognitive overload/abstract learning

• lessons should be kept short & focus on procedural 

• 2D may be more effective than VR 

People underestimate distance in VR (Loomis & Knapp, 2003)

• when computing variables based on movements often underestimate distance

• app that require accurate movements may be challenging

How to resolve issues of VR (Bailenson, J. N. et al., 2025)

• use DICE Framework → only use VR for

  • dangerous

  • impossible

  • counterproductive

  • expesneive experiences

• that are not possible to implement in the real world

• e.g training firefighters

Body tracking makes VR unique

• VR's unique ability to track and integrate a user's body movements into the experience is a core benefit, especially for physical activities.

  • e.g VR is great for high-level spatial activities like virtual fitness classes.

• but Users should be wary of using VR for tasks that require down-to-the-centimeter accuracy, as the medium struggles with precision movements and distance judgment.

applying cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) principles to AR

• AR HMD, handheld AR, video group

  • completed tangram game (creating shapes)

• no difference in extraneous load levels between AR & video conditions

  • both efficent at minimising cognitive effort

• no difference between retention & transfer task

• effectiveness of CTML can be extended to AR but needs further investigation