slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Pedro Gamito, PhD Laboratory of Computational Psychology

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Pedro Gamito, PhD Laboratory of Computational Psychology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. [email protected]

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Pedro Gamito, PhD Laboratory of Computational Psychology' - gus


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
slide1

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

[email protected]

introduction i
Introduction I

TBI/stroke

Attention

Executivefunctions

Dailyliveactivities

slide3

Introduction II

WWW

VR

Freeaccess

Motivation

Feedback

Repetition

Rehabilitation

Repetition

Feedback

Motivation

Online VR

slide4

Introduction III

Palm VR

Fishtank VR

Projection VR

Hand-based Displays

OcclusiveHBDs

Non-occlusiveHBDs

Stationary Displays

Head-based Displays

slide5

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

slide9

Introduction VIII

dissemination

Fishtank VR

Projection VR

OcclusiveHBDs

NonocclusiveHBDs

Stationary Displays

Head-based Displays

slide10

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.
slide11

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)
slide12

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
slide13

Method IV

Procedures

  • HMD: eMagin Z8 (n=9);
  • 21’’ Asus VE228D screen display (1680 X 1050 pixels of screen resolution) (n=8)
slide14

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).
slide16

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

slide17

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)

slide18

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),
slide19

Thanks !

labpsicom.ulusofona.pt

[email protected]

ad