Viewing medium affects arm motor performance in 3D virtual environments

Background2D and 3D virtual reality platforms are used for designing individualized training environments for post-stroke rehabilitation. Virtual environments (VEs) are viewed using media like head mounted displays (HMDs) and large screen projection systems (SPS) which can influence the quality of perception of the environment. We estimated if there were differences in arm pointing kinematics when subjects with and without stroke viewed a 3D VE through two different media: HMD and SPS.MethodsTwo groups of subjects participated (healthy control, n = 10, aged 53.6 ± 17.2 yrs; stroke, n = 20, 66.2 ± 11.3 yrs). Arm motor impairment and spasticity were assessed in the stroke group which was divided into mild (n = 10) and moderate-to-severe (n = 10) sub-groups based on Fugl-Meyer Scores. Subjects pointed (8 times each) to 6 randomly presented targets located at two heights in the ipsilateral, middle and contralateral arm workspaces. Movements were repeated in the same VE viewed using HMD (Kaiser XL50) and SPS. Movement kinematics were recorded using an Optotrak system (Certus, 6 markers, 100 Hz). Upper limb motor performance (precision, velocity, trajectory straightness) and movement pattern (elbow, shoulder ranges and trunk displacement) outcomes were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVAs.ResultsFor all groups, there were no differences in endpoint trajectory straightness, shoulder flexion and shoulder horizontal adduction ranges and sagittal trunk displacement between the two media. All subjects, however, made larger errors in the vertical direction using HMD compared to SPS. Healthy subjects also made larger errors in the sagittal direction, slower movements overall and used less range of elbow extension for the lower central target using HMD compared to SPS. The mild and moderate-to-severe sub-groups made larger RMS errors with HMD. The only advantage of using the HMD was that movements were 22% faster in the moderate-to-severe stroke sub-group compared to the SPS.ConclusionsDespite the similarity in majority of the movement kinematics, differences in movement speed and larger errors were observed for movements using the HMD. Use of the SPS may be a more comfortable and effective option to view VEs for upper limb rehabilitation post-stroke. This has implications for the use of VR applications to enhance upper limb recovery.

[1]  Amar R. Marathe,et al.  Virtual reality hardware and graphic display options for brain–machine interfaces , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[2]  John R. Wilson,et al.  Virtual Reality-Induced Symptoms and Effects (VRISE) , 1999, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[3]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. , 1975, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[4]  Betty J. Mohler,et al.  The influence of feedback on egocentric distance judgments in real and virtual environments , 2006, APGV '06.

[5]  Sandeep K Subramanian,et al.  Validity of Movement Pattern Kinematics as Measures of Arm Motor Impairment Poststroke , 2010, Stroke.

[6]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Reduced fields of view are neither necessary nor sufficient for distance underestimation but reduce precision and may cause calibration problems , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  Shahina Pardhan,et al.  Reaching and grasping with restricted peripheral vision , 2007, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[8]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis , 1982 .

[9]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measuring Physical Impairment and Disability With the Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment , 1993, Stroke.

[10]  Ryad Chellali,et al.  Depth Perception within Virtual Environments: A Comparative Study Between Wide Screen Stereoscopic Displays and Head Mounted Devices , 2009, 2009 Computation World: Future Computing, Service Computation, Cognitive, Adaptive, Content, Patterns.

[11]  Eliane C Magdalon,et al.  Comparison of grasping movements made by healthy subjects in a 3-dimensional immersive virtual versus physical environment. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[12]  Pamela W. Duncan,et al.  Similar Motor Recovery of Upper and Lower Extremities After Stroke , 1994, Stroke.

[13]  J. Kleim,et al.  Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[14]  James F. Knight,et al.  Effect of Head-Mounted Displays on Posture , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon , 2001, Nature.

[16]  Eliane C Magdalon,et al.  Virtual reality environments to enhance upper limb functional recovery in patients with hemiparesis. , 2009, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[17]  Amanda Connell.  The Bobath Concept in Adult Neurology , 2010 .

[18]  J. Sage,et al.  The interaction of visual and proprioceptive inputs in pointing to actual and remembered targets in Parkinson’s disease , 2001, Neuroscience.

[19]  M.F. Levin,et al.  Comparison of reaching and grasping kinematics in patients with hemiparesis and in healthy controls in virtual and physical environments , 2008, 2008 Virtual Rehabilitation.

[20]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  The Influence of Restricted Viewing Conditions on Egocentric Distance Perception: Implications for Real and Virtual Indoor Environments , 2005, Perception.

[21]  Jodie M. Plumert,et al.  Distance perception in real and virtual environments , 2004, APGV '04.

[22]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Throwing versus walking as indicators of distance perception in similar real and virtual environments , 2005, TAP.

[23]  A. Rizzo,et al.  Virtual Reality and Neuropsychology: Upgrading the Current Tools , 2002, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[24]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments , 2009, TAP.

[25]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems , 2008, Displays.

[26]  Hubert Dolezal.  Living in a World Transformed: Perceptual and Performatory Adaptation to Visual Distortion , 2004 .

[27]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Does the Quality of the Computer Graphics Matter when Judging Distances in Visually Immersive Environments? , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[28]  Will Spijkers,et al.  Depth Perception in Virtual Reality: Distance Estimations in Peri- and Extrapersonal Space , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[29]  S. Watt,et al.  Field of view affects reaching, not grasping , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  Mindy F Levin,et al.  Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis , 2004, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[31]  Agnès Roby-Brami,et al.  Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[32]  Elliot B. Werner.  Manual of Visual Fields , 1991 .

[33]  Jeffrey B. Wagman,et al.  Affordances and Inertial Constraints on Tool Use , 2001 .

[34]  M. Levin,et al.  Relief of hemiparetic spasticity by TENS is associated with improvement in reflex and voluntary motor functions. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[35]  S. McDonough,et al.  Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: Still more virtual than real , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[36]  S. G. Nelson,et al.  Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[37]  Francine Malouin,et al.  A Treadmill and Motion Coupled Virtual Reality System for Gait Training Post-Stroke , 2006, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[38]  Simon C. Gandevia,et al.  Kinesthesia and unique solutions for control of multijoint movements , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[39]  L. S. Tamkei,et al.  Effect of viewing angle on arm reaching while standing in a virtual environment: potential for virtual rehabilitation. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[40]  D. Burke,et al.  Does the nervous system depend on kinesthetic information to control natural limb movements , 1992 .

[41]  E. Tunik,et al.  Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review. , 2009, NeuroRehabilitation.

[42]  Albert A. Rizzo,et al.  Comparison of Two VR Platforms for Rehabilitation: Video Capture versus HMD , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[43]  Sandeep K Subramanian,et al.  Kinematics of pointing movements made in a virtual versus a physical 3-dimensional environment in healthy and stroke subjects. , 2009, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[44]  Howard Poizner,et al.  The interaction of visual and proprioceptive inputs in pointing to actual and remembered targets , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[45]  P. Pigeon,et al.  Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[46]  Michael McNeill,et al.  Immersive virtual reality for upper limb rehabilitation following stroke , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[47]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Limited Field of View of Head-Mounted Displays Is Not the Cause of Distance Underestimation in Virtual Environments , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.