The purpose of this study is to test the (a) feasibility, (b) usability, and (c) acceptability of using the Oculus Virtual Reality (VR) for chronic stroke survivors who have mild-moderate cognitive and unilateral arm impairment to administer upper extremity and cognitive rehabilitation, to calculate the change in upper extremity and cognition scores on standardized measurements per standard of care and to qualitatively explore the impact of engaging caregivers in supporting the stroke survivor's rehabilitation and the impact of this engagement on the stroke survivor and caregiver dyad using semi-structured interviews.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
32
During the first visit, the Oculus headset will be placed on the stroke survivor's head and demonstrate how to use the headset. participant will be then allowed to play a game using the hand controllers for up to 30 minutes. Finally, a copy of exercises for their home rehabilitation program will be provided. During the next rehabilitation visits, a trained research assistant will guide the stroke survivor with using the gaming headset. The session will be stopped every 20 minutes to make sure that the stroke survivor is feeling well and to give them a break. The stroke survivor may stop the session at any time. This session will last for an hour.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Houston, Texas, United States
Feasibility as Assessed by the Number of Sessions Attended
The minimum number of sessions expected for a user are 2 per week (8 sessions)
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Feasibility as Assessed by the Time Spent Using the Oculus VR
the minimum time spent playing Job Simulator is 1 hour (60 minutes) per week. (240 minutes through the end of the study)
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Usability as Assessed by the Score on the System Usability Scale (SUS)
The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to assess the usability of the technology. Total score ranges from 10 to 50, with a higher score indicating greater usability.
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Usability as Assessed by the Score on the Presence Questionnaire (PQ)
The Presence Questionnaire (PQ), total score ranges from 29 to 87, with a higher score indicating greater usability.
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Cognition as Assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) range from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline
Cognition as Assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) range from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.
Time frame: end of intervention (about 4 weeks from baseline)
Limb Function as Assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Total score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), ranging from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Time frame: Baseline
Limb Function as Assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Total score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), ranging from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Arm Impairment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer - Upper Extremity Assessment
Total score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), ranges from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better arm function.
Time frame: Baseline
Arm Impairment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer - Upper Extremity Assessment
Total score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), ranges from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better arm function.
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Burden of Caregivers in Supporting the Stroke Survivor as Assessed by the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - Short Version
Total score on the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - short version, ranges from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating more burden
Time frame: Baseline
Burden of Caregivers in Supporting the Stroke Survivor as Assessed by the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - Short Version
Total score on the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - short version, ranges from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating more burden
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Baseline
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day 3)
Impact of the Rehabilitation on the Participant as Assessed by the Number of Themes Derived From the Qualitative Interview
In-person, in-depth interviews will be conducted following completion of a virtual reality (VR) intervention using the Oculus Quest 2 headset for post-stroke rehabilitation. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim and a qualitative analytic process will be used to identify common themes. A codebook will be developed based on analysis of the transcripts. This outcome reflects the number of themes derived from the interviews.
Time frame: Baseline
Impact of the Rehabilitation on the Caregiver as Assessed by Number of Themes Derived From the Qualitative Interview
In-person, in-depth interviews will be conducted following completion of a virtual reality (VR) intervention using the Oculus Quest 2 headset for post-stroke rehabilitation. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim and a qualitative analytic process will be used to identify common themes. A codebook will be developed based on analysis of the transcripts. This outcome reflects the number of themes derived from the interviews.
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day3 )
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day3 )
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day 3)