VR Therapy Notes

Jeff Soa, a stroke patient, is exploring virtual reality (VR) therapy options after seeing other stroke patients benefit.
He experiences speech difficulties and visual field effects.

An article from 2020, published in 2021, discusses VR-based digital therapeutics.
The study suggests this therapy is safe and effective for visual field effects in stroke patients.
It indicates potential for long-term improvement in visual field perception after 12 weeks of visual training.
Previous studies had smaller sample sizes or lacked randomization, posing risks.
Hypothesis: Visual perceptual learning via visual training in blind visual fields can restore visual field sensitivity in cortical blindness.

The test involves flashing lights at different degrees of the visual field (e.g., 24 degrees, 54 degrees).
Significant improvement is defined as six decibels (dB) of gain.

88 people were screened, but only 79 completed the experiment.
41 in the experimental group, 38 in the control group.
Participants had to be more than six months post-stroke to ensure recovery had plateaued.
The experimental group received organized, massed perimetric stimulus with 4.3 times more frequent stimulation in the impaired field of vision than in the central field.
Demographics like age, sex, and area of impairment were considered.
The trial consisted of 384 trials per day, five days a week, for twelve weeks.
The flashes task required participants to identify if and where they saw the light.

The experimental group showed improvement.
The control group showed only slight to no improvement.
Post-12 weeks, both groups showed clinically significant improvement, but there was no significant difference between the groups.
Secondary outcomes, analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, also showed no significant difference between the groups.
Both groups improved by over six decibels.
Potential biases existed due to a lack of access to prior medical records and medications.

Creating a true double-blind study is challenging because all groups would need VR, which could skew the results.
The study suggests that the central field training given to the control group might have impacted the results.
A better approach might involve on-screen training.

33 participants, average age 28.
Some were excluded due to psychological issues, etc.
Data analysis focused on early experimental and control groups.
The experimental group had a 60% increase in lower muscle click and something else. It's not clear.
The neural group didn't change.
At baseline, changes in terms of depression were noted.
A life equation was used that takes into account other factors to analyze the data.
The average value of the equation was 0.5, with p < 0.01. These p-values means the correlation is statistically significant.
Future studies should be longer, harder, and include more functional tasks, objective photo assessments, and longer follow-up durations (beyond two to seven weeks).

There are problems with study designs, such as a lack of information on direction or standardized VR training.
Some patients received VR five times, while others received it 50,000 times, indicating a lack of standardization.

This approach does not use a headset; it involves looking at a screen.
It was a randomized, multi-centered, single-blind study funded by the Neuro Foundation and conducted at stroke rehab centers across four countries.
The study investigates the effectiveness of non-immersive peripheral reology on upper extremity movement post-stroke.
Hypothesis: Non-immersive peripheral reology therapy will lead to greater movement improvement post-stroke compared to recreational therapy.

893 patients were screened, and 141 were assigned.
The groups are divided almost evenly: 71 in the experimental group and 70 in the recreational group.
However, only 47 experimental and 54 recreational participants were related to the assessments.
The study was randomized and single-blinded (investigators were blinded).
There were 10 sixty-minute sessions over two weeks.
Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after treatment, and four weeks after treatment.
The Wolf Motor Function Test was used.

Aggregate seconds, measured via the ''that'll be I mean, discuss the primary domain variable that they were looking at.'' which are measuring how long it takes individuals to do six different tasks.
Tasks included lifting a pen, lifting a hand, standing on a table and standing on a box and folding a towel.
Compared to baseline, it took less time to complete the tasks post-intervention.
However, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and recreation groups after the two-week intervention and four-week assessment.
Graphs show the median amount of seconds and percentage of change time from baseline.
Measurements with units were mainly strength-related.