CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04296032Updated Sep 24, 2021

Effects of Virtual Reality Game on Upper Extremity Function for Stroke

An interventional study of virtual reality game traning and standard treatment in Stroke, sponsored by Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Taiwan. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-24.

Sponsored by Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
37
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
20 Years to 75 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Virtual reality training had already been used in stroke rehabilitation, and previous studies supported that it could improve upper extremity ability and increase motivation and pleasure than conventional methods. Pablo is a new VR game combined with motion sensor system which can detect subject's activities. Unlike commercial camera systems such as Kinect or XBOX, the systems require a continuous sightline or enough active range of motion which may increase risk of compensatory movement. Few of studies had investigated the rehabilitation effects on upper extremity with Pablo for patients with stroke.The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of virtual reality upper extremity training through Pablo system in patients with chronic stroke.

Read the detailed description

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of virtual reality upper extremity training through Pablo system in patients with chronic stroke.

METHODS:Patients with mild to moderate motor deficits were recruited and randomly assigned to "VR plus standard rehabilitation group"(n=19), and "standard rehabilitation group" (n=19). After 12 training sessions (60 minutes a time, 2 times a week), the performance was assessed by a blinded assessor. The outcome measures included Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Limb section(FMAUE), Box and block test(BBT), Dynanometer, active range of motion of shoulder and elbow,and Stroke Impact Scale.Modified Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale and adverse effect were recorded after each sessions.Collected data will be analyzed with sample T test by SPSS version 20.0, and alpha level was set at 0.05.

02

Conditions studied

  • Stroke

Browse trials for

03

In context

Stroke

7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 37 is below the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital is the lead sponsor of 100 studies on the registry; 18 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
20 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • First stroke with hemiplegia,
  • Chronicity of >6 months
  • Could understand instructions
  • Brunnstrom stage of UE ≥IV.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who were aged \<20 years and >75 years
  • Patients with visual or auditory impairment who were unable to see or hear the feedback from the device clearly
  • Montreal Cognitive Assessment \<16
  • Modified Ashworth Scale score of >2
  • Patients with other medical symptoms that can affect movement were excluded.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
37 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    virtual reality group

    Standard treatment 30 minutes plus virtual reality game 30 minutes, twice a week for 9 weeks.

    Behavioral: virtual reality game traning · Behavioral: standard treatment

  • Active comparator
    standard treatment group

    Standard treatment 60 minutes, twice a week for 9 weeks.

    Behavioral: standard treatment

Interventions

  • Behavioralvirtual reality game traning

    The controllers were attached to upper extremity to control the game. The game could train the shoulder, elbow, and wrist control.

  • Behavioralstandard treatment

    The program included bilateral hand, grasp/release, and pinch activities.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Fugl-Meyer Assessment-upper extremity

    The Fugl-Meyer Assessment-upper extremity (FMA-UE) measures motor impairment in the upper extremity. The assessment consists of 33 items, including movement, reflex, grasp, and coordination, and a total score of 66.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline at 9 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Box and block test

    The Box and block test (BBT) measures unilateral gross manual dexterity. The BBT score denotes the number of blocks transferred within 60 s.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline at 9 weeks

  2. Dynanometer

    The grip dynamometer was used to measure the maximum isometric strength of the hand and forearm muscles. The mean score of 3 trials was calculated. For this measurement, the elbow was placed at 90° and the forearm was placed in mid-position.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline at 9 weeks

  3. Active range of motion of shoulder and elbow

    The active range of motion of shoulder and elbow were measured through pablo system.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline at 9 weeks

  4. Stroke Impact Scale

    The Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) is a quality of life measure designed specifically for patients with stroke. The instrument is a self-report questionnaire assessing eight domains: strength, hand function, activities of daily living (ADL)/instrumental ADL (IADL), mobility, communication, emotion, memory and thinking, and social participation.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline at 9 weeks

  5. Modified Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

    It is an scale that assesses enjoyment for physical activity by asking participants to rate "how you feel at the moment about the physical activity you have been doing" using a 7-point bipolar Likert scale, from 1 (I enjoy it) to 7 (I hate it).

    Time frame: Every training session during 18 sessions, total sessions continued to 9 weeks

  6. Adverse effect times

    To record the adverse effect times during the therapy.

    Time frame: Every training session during 18 sessions, total sessions continued to 9 weeks

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital
    New Taipei City, Taiwan
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Hatano S. Experience from a multicentre stroke register: a preliminary report. Bull World Health Organ. 1976;54(5):541-53. PubMed 1088404 ↗
  • Carod-Artal J, Egido JA, Gonzalez JL, Varela de Seijas E. Quality of life among stroke survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: experience of a stroke unit. Stroke. 2000 Dec;31(12):2995-3000. doi: 10.1161/01.str.31.12.2995. PubMed 11108762 ↗
  • Chiu L, Shyu WC, Liu YH. Comparisons of the cost-effectiveness among hospital chronic care, nursing home placement, home nursing care and family care for severe stroke patients. J Adv Nurs. 2001 Feb;33(3):380-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01703.x. PubMed 11251725 ↗
  • Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wunsche B. Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Sep 12;11:137. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-137. PubMed 25217124 ↗
  • Jang SH. The recovery of walking in stroke patients: a review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2010 Dec;33(4):285-9. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e32833f0500. PubMed 20805757 ↗
  • Kopp B, Kunkel A, Muhlnickel W, Villringer K, Taub E, Flor H. Plasticity in the motor system related to therapy-induced improvement of movement after stroke. Neuroreport. 1999 Mar 17;10(4):807-10. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199903170-00026. PubMed 10208552 ↗
  • Basteris A, Nijenhuis SM, Stienen AH, Buurke JH, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Jul 10;11:111. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-111. PubMed 25012864 ↗
  • Correction to: Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2017 Dec;48(12):e369. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000156. No abstract available. PubMed 29180589 ↗
  • Susanto EA, Tong RK, Ockenfeld C, Ho NS. Efficacy of robot-assisted fingers training in chronic stroke survivors: a pilot randomized-controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Apr 25;12:42. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0033-5. PubMed 25906983 ↗
  • Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 12;2015(2):CD008349. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub3. PubMed 25927099 ↗
  • Smith, C., et al., Can non-immersive virtual reality improve physical outcomes of rehabilitation? Physical Therapy Reviews, 2012. 17(1): p. 1-15.
  • Peters DM, McPherson AK, Fletcher B, McClenaghan BA, Fritz SL. Counting repetitions: an observational study of video game play in people with chronic poststroke hemiparesis. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2013 Sep;37(3):105-11. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31829ee9bc. PubMed 23872681 ↗
  • Laver, K.E., et al., Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 2018. 49(4): p. e160-e161.
  • Lin LF, Lin YJ, Lin ZH, Chuang LY, Hsu WC, Lin YH. Feasibility and efficacy of wearable devices for upper limb rehabilitation in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Jun;54(3):388-396. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04691-3. Epub 2017 Jun 19. PubMed 28627862 ↗
  • Chen HM, Chen CC, Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Hsieh CL. Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40. doi: 10.1177/1545968308331146. Epub 2009 Mar 4. PubMed 19261767 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 24, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04296032
Lead sponsor
Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 5, 2020
Start date
May 2, 2020
Primary completion
Jun 25, 2021
Completion
Jul 25, 2021
Last update
Sep 24, 2021

Study contacts

Hsinchieh Lee
principal investigator · Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion