slide1 n.
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. pedro.gamito@ulusofona.pt.

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


Download Now 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

pedro.gamito@ulusofona.pt

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

pedro.gamito@ulusofona.pt