Virtual exercises to promote cognitive recovery in stroke patients: The comparison between HMD vs. s...
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 19

Pedro Gamito, PhD Laboratory of Computational Psychology PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 82 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Virtual exercises to promote cognitive recovery in stroke patients: The comparison between HMD vs. screen exposure displays. Pedro Gamito, PhD Laboratory of Computational Psychology University Lusófona of Humanities and Technologies Lisbon , Portugal. pedro.gamito@ulusofona.pt.

Download Presentation

Pedro Gamito, PhD Laboratory of Computational Psychology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Virtual exercises to promote cognitive recovery in stroke patients: The comparison between HMD vs. screen exposure displays

Pedro Gamito, PhD

LaboratoryofComputationalPsychology

University Lusófona ofHumanitiesand Technologies

Lisbon, Portugal

pedro.gamito@ulusofona.pt


Introduction I

TBI/stroke

Attention

Executivefunctions

Dailyliveactivities


Introduction II

WWW

VR

Freeaccess

Motivation

Feedback

Repetition

Rehabilitation

Repetition

Feedback

Motivation

Online VR


Introduction III

Palm VR

Fishtank VR

Projection VR

Hand-based Displays

OcclusiveHBDs

Non-occlusiveHBDs

Stationary Displays

Head-based Displays


Introduction IV

  • less immersive;

  • no head tracker;

  • less expensive;

  • no hard/software proficiency;

  • available on almost every household.

Fishtank VR

Projection VR

  • more immersive;

  • head tracker;

  • more expensive;

  • hard/software

  • proficiency;

  • additional cost.

OcclusiveHBDs

NonocclusiveHBDs

Stationary Displays

Head-based Displays


Introduction V


Introduction VI

3D

VR


Introduction VII


Introduction VIII

dissemination

Fishtank VR

Projection VR

OcclusiveHBDs

NonocclusiveHBDs

Stationary Displays

Head-based Displays


  • MethodI

  • Participants

    • n = 17

    • M = 51 yearsold (SD = 14);

    • Male/Female = 58%/42%;

    • Stroke;

    • Memory and attention impairments (Mini Mental - Folstein et al, 1975);

    • No previous psychiatric disorders, drug abuse , severe depression or neurological disease.


  • Method II

Measures

  • Memory: Wechsler Memory Scale – WMS-III (Wechsler, 1954) & copy of Rey Complex Figure – RCF (Osterrieth, 1994)

  • Attention: Toulouse Piéron – TP (Piéron, 1955)


  • Method III

Procedures

  • Psychology Department of the Centro de Medicina de Reabilitação de Alcoitão, Lisbon, Portugal;

  • VR + WWW: Unity 2.5;

  • HP Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q6600 PC equipped with a GeForce GT 220;

  • Tasks: daily activities + working memory + visuo-spatial orientation + recognition memory


  • Method IV

Procedures

  • HMD: eMagin Z8 (n=9);

  • 21’’ Asus VE228D screen display (1680 X 1050 pixels of screen resolution) (n=8)


  • MethodV

Procedures

  • 13 sessions (one session per week);

  • first session, memory and attention tests (WMS-III, RCF and TP);

  • on second and third session patients acquired computer interaction skills on a training platform;

  • next nine sessions were used for cognitive training by VR.

  • last session, memory and attention tests (WMS-III, RCF and TP).


  • MethodVI


Results I

WMS mean scores (left figure) and RCF mean scores (right figure) to each experimental condition.

main effect of evaluation in WMS (F(1, 16) = 12.491; MSE = 117.813; p < 0.01) and RCF (F(1, 16) = 8.676; MSE = 19.709; p < 0.05)

no significant interaction effects were reported between factors (p > 0.05) in the WMS and RCF assessments

significant increase in WMS (M = 85.71; SD = 3.89 vs. M = 98.94; SD = 3.99) and RCF scores


Results II

TP mean scores to each experimental condition

attention increased from initial (M = 75.69; SD = 10.83) to final assessment (M = 108.56; SD = 16.23)

main effect of evaluation in the TP test (F(1, 16) = 15.935; MSE = 542.598; p < 0.01),

no significant interaction effects (p > 0.05)


Finalremarks

using VR exercises aimed at training memory and attention functions in stroke patients.

  • VR exercises aimed at training memory and attention functions in stroke patients;

  • No interaction effects between factors (p > 0.05),


Thanks !

labpsicom.ulusofona.pt

pedro.gamito@ulusofona.pt


  • Login