CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06887231VR-TENSUpdated Apr 6, 2025

Virtual Reality and Neurostimulation for Early Stroke Rehabilitation

An interventional study of VR+TENS and Conventional rehabilitation in Stroke, sponsored by Medical University of Vienna. Recruiting at 1 site in Austria. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-04-06.

Sponsored by Medical University of Vienna · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Mar 2025; still recruiting 1 year 6 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
35
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability, leaving millions of individuals each year impaired with lasting motor and sensory impairments. In the subacute phase, which goes from the first week to 3 months post-stroke, the patient has the highest recovery, which could be boosted by proper technologies intended for the rehabilitation of the patients. The impairments that the patients experience are extremely heterogeneous and go from muscle weakness to spasticity of the paretic side of the body. Beyond motor deficits, stroke survivors also suffer from sensory impairment (they do not properly feel with the paretic side of their body), impaired body representation (misjudging the size, position, and movement of their affected limb), which can further hinder recovery.

Traditional rehabilitation primarily targets motor function, often without considering at all the role of sensory feedback and body perception in the recovery process. However, growing evidence suggests that the combination of multiple sensory modalities towards a multifaceted rehabilitation can enhance neuroplasticity and improve rehabilitation outcomes.

To address this, the investigators have developed a novel rehabilitation approach that integrates immersive virtual reality (VR) with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This system allows stroke patients to interact with a virtual environment while receiving synchronized tactile stimulation, reinforcing sensorimotor integration. Unlike conventional therapy, which relies on passive or repetitive exercises, this approach engages patients in active, goal-oriented movements, tailored to their individual recovery progress.

By focusing on the subacute stroke population, this project aims to leverage the brain's heightened plasticity during early recovery to maximize functional improvements. The VR-based intervention will adapt to each patient's motor abilities, providing real-time feedback to encourage precise movements and enhance sensory processing. Through this multisensory experience, the investigators seek to improve not only motor control but also sensory and body representation measures.

02

Conditions studied

  • Stroke

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Stroke
  • Virtual Reality
  • Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation
  • Multisensory integration
  • Task oriented movement
  • Rehabilitation
03

In context

Stroke

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

This study's planned enrollment of 35 is below the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

Medical University of Vienna is the lead sponsor of 1,076 studies on the registry; 177 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Confirmed diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke
  • In the subacute phase (from 7 days to 3 months from last stroke onset)
  • Fugl-Meyer-Upper Extremity (FMUE) scale for the motor part: FMUE ≥ 10
  • Ability to sit in an upright position
  • Age between 18 and 80 years

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Other neurological or physical impairment or mental condition that, in the judgment of the investigator, does not allow participation in the study.
  • Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) \< 24
  • Epilepsy
  • Nausea, headaches or fatigue due to VR-generated environment ("virtual reality motion sickness")
  • Peripheral nerve damage in the affected arm or hand
  • Pacemaker or other electronic implants
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
35 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    VR+TENS

    Patients will engage in goal-directed upper-limb rehabilitation exercises within a virtual reality environment. During these exercises, they will receive synchronized electrical stimulation targeting the median nerve. The intervention phase will span three weeks, with patients participating in at least three sessions per week, each lasting approximately 60 minutes.

    Other: VR+TENS

  • Active comparator
    Conventional Rehabilitation

    Participants will undergo the same therapy duration, engaging in conventional physiotherapy, occupational therapy, or physical therapy. Exercises and movements will be designed to align with those in the experimental group.

    Other: Conventional rehabilitation

Interventions

  • OtherVR+TENS

    Patients will perform task-oriented movements in an immersive scenario while receiving congruent electrical stimulation. During each session, multiple games will be played, with the type and difficulty calibrated based on the patient's level of impairment.

  • OtherConventional rehabilitation

    Patients will perform dose-matched conventional rehabilitation (aligned with the intervention group), which will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changes in functional performances

    To assess functional performance of the upper extremity through observational means the investigators will use the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). The ARAT is a 19-item measure divided into 4 sub-tests (grasp, grip, pinch, and gross arm movement). The total score goes from 0 to 57. Performance on each item is rated on a 4-point ordinal scale ranging from: 3) Performs test normally 2) Completes test, but takes abnormally long or has great difficulty 1) Performs test partially 0) Can perform no part of test.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  2. Changes in sensorimotor impairments

    To assess the sensorimotor impairment in individuals who have had a stroke the investigators will use Fugl-Meyer for upper extremity (FMUE). FMUE assesses reflex activity, movement control, muscle strength, and sensory performances. It comprises items scored on a scale of 0 to 2, where 0 = cannot perform, 1 = performs partially and 2 = performs fully.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  3. Changes in upper limb body representation

    To measure the body representation of the subjects the investigators will use body-landmark metric. In VR, the subject is asked to locate the position of specific body landmarks (e.g. elbow, inner wrist, outer wrist, index, ring) describing the proportion of patients' arm while a black panel is on top of his/her arm. The investigators will then compare the real and perceived dimension of patients' arm

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Changes in degree of assistance required

    To assess the degree of assistance required by an individual on ten mobility and self-care the investigators will use the Barthel Index. The score goes from 0 to 100. It consists of an ordinal scale which measures a person's ability to complete activities of daily living (ADL)

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  2. Changes in spasticity at hand and elbow level

    The investigators will use Modified Ashworth Scale to test resistance to passive movement about a joint with varying degrees of velocity. This test is performed by extending the patients limb first from a position of maximal possible flexion to maximal possible extension (the point at which the first soft resistance is met).

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  3. Changes in peripersonal space

    To measure the peri-personal space of stroke patients (the space in which multisensory integration is enhanced). Test Performance: In VR, the subject is sitting on a table and sees balls approaching him. He/she's asked to press a controller whenever he/she feels electrical stimulation.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  4. Changes in tactile acuity

    To measure the tactile acuity of patients we will use the Two-Point discrimination test. While blindfolded, the patient is repetitively touched with either one or two pins (fixed distance) and he asked to tell how many pins he/she feels.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  5. Changes in spatial neglect (CBS)

    To measure spatial neglect, participants will be assessed using the Catherine Bergego Scale, which comprises 10 everyday tasks observed during self-care activities. A therapist scores the patient on behaviors such as neglecting the left side of the body and difficulties in grooming, eating, movement, and spatial awareness. The CBS uses a 4-point scale (0-3) to rate neglect severity, with a total score of 30.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  6. Changes in spatial neglect (LBT)

    To measure spatial neglect, patients will perform a line bisection test. The Line Bisection Test is a test is a quick measure to detect the presence of unilateral spatial neglect (USN). To complete the test, one must place a mark with a pencil through the center of a series of horizontal lines. Usually, a displacement of the bisection mark towards the side of the brain lesion is interpreted as a symptom of neglect.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  7. Changes in upper limb kinematics (Velocity)

    To assess changes in velocity the investigators will measure kinematic velocity of the patients while performing rehabilitation tasks.

    Time frame: Every day, from day 1 to day 14

  8. Changes in upper limb kinematics (Smoothness)

    To assess changes in smoothness the investigators will measure kinematic smoothness of the patients while performing rehabilitation tasks.

    Time frame: Every day, from day 1 to day 14

  9. Changes in upper limb kinematics (Efficiency)

    To assess changes in efficiency the investigators will measure the amount and rate of task-oriented movements of the patients.

    Time frame: Every day, from day 1 to day 14

  10. Changes in upper limb kinematics (Precision)

    To assess changes in precision the investigators will measure the spatial precision (error with respect to a predefined correct movement) during the task-oriented movements of the patient.

    Time frame: Every day, from day 1 to day 14

Other outcomes

  1. Changes in pain

    To quantify the experience of pain. This will be evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The score goes from 0 to 10 where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst possible pain.

    Time frame: day 0 (before the first rehabilitation session, T0); 1.5 week (after six rehabilitation sessions, T1); 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2); 5 weeks (2 weeks after the last rehabilitation session,T3)

  2. Treatment Satisfaction

    To assess treatment satisfaction, participants will complete the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires, rated on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means complete dissatisfaction and 10 means maximum satisfaction

    Time frame: 3 weeks (one day after the last rehabilitation session, T2)

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Medical University of Vienna, Department of Neurology
    Vienna, 1090, Austria
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31. PubMed 1135616 ↗
  • G. V. Aurucci et al., 'Targeted neural stimulation congruent with immersive reality decreases neuropathic pain - a Randomized Controlled Trial', Dec. 11, 2024, medRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2024.12.10.24318374.
  • Aurucci GV, Preatoni G, Damiani A, Raspopovic S. Brain-Computer Interface to Deliver Individualized Multisensory Intervention for Neuropathic Pain. Neurotherapeutics. 2023 Sep;20(5):1316-1329. doi: 10.1007/s13311-023-01396-y. Epub 2023 Jul 5. PubMed 37407726 ↗
  • Bolognini N, Russo C, Edwards DJ. The sensory side of post-stroke motor rehabilitation. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016 Apr 11;34(4):571-86. doi: 10.3233/RNN-150606. PubMed 27080070 ↗
  • Perez-Marcos D. Virtual reality experiences, embodiment, videogames and their dimensions in neurorehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Nov 26;15(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12984-018-0461-0. PubMed 30477527 ↗
  • Hao J, He Z, Yu X, Remis A. Comparison of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality for upper extremity functional recovery in patients with stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2023 Aug;44(8):2679-2697. doi: 10.1007/s10072-023-06742-8. Epub 2023 Mar 23. PubMed 36959332 ↗
  • Laver KE, Lange B, George S, Deutsch JE, Saposnik G, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 20;11(11):CD008349. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub4. PubMed 29156493 ↗
  • Chen Y, Abel KT, Janecek JT, Chen Y, Zheng K, Cramer SC. Home-based technologies for stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2019 Mar;123:11-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.12.001. Epub 2018 Dec 11. PubMed 30654899 ↗
  • A. Serino et al., 'Peripersonal Space: An Index of Multisensory Body-Environment Interactions in Real, Virtual, and Mixed Realities', Front. ICT, vol. 4, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.3389/fict.2017.00031.
  • Crema A, Bassolino M, Guanziroli E, Colombo M, Blanke O, Serino A, Micera S, Molteni F. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation restores upper limb sensory-motor functions and body representations in chronic stroke survivors. Med. 2022 Jan 14;3(1):58-74.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2021.12.001. Epub 2022 Jan 7. PubMed 35590144 ↗
  • Bassolino M, Franza M, Guanziroli E, Sorrentino G, Canzoneri E, Colombo M, Crema A, Bertoni T, Mastria G, Vissani M, Sokolov AA, Micera S, Molteni F, Blanke O, Serino A. Body and peripersonal space representations in chronic stroke patients with upper limb motor deficits. Brain Commun. 2022 Aug 5;4(4):fcac179. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac179. eCollection 2022. PubMed 35950092 ↗
  • Mastria G, Bertoni T, Perrin H, Akulenko N, Risso G, Akselrod M, Guanziroli E, Molteni F, Hagmann P, Bassolino M, Serino A. Body ownership alterations in stroke emerge from reduced proprioceptive precision and damage to the frontoparietal network. Med. 2025 Apr 11;6(4):100536. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2024.10.013. Epub 2024 Nov 11. PubMed 39532102 ↗
  • Matamala-Gomez M, Malighetti C, Cipresso P, Pedroli E, Realdon O, Mantovani F, Riva G. Changing Body Representation Through Full Body Ownership Illusions Might Foster Motor Rehabilitation Outcome in Patients With Stroke. Front Psychol. 2020 Aug 21;11:1962. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01962. eCollection 2020. PubMed 32973612 ↗
  • Takeuchi N, Izumi S. Maladaptive plasticity for motor recovery after stroke: mechanisms and approaches. Neural Plast. 2012;2012:359728. doi: 10.1155/2012/359728. Epub 2012 Jun 26. PubMed 22792492 ↗
  • Doyle S, Bennett S, Fasoli SE, McKenna KT. Interventions for sensory impairment in the upper limb after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;2010(6):CD006331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006331.pub2. PubMed 20556766 ↗
  • Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011 May 14;377(9778):1693-702. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5. PubMed 21571152 ↗
  • Lucas-Noll J, Clua-Espuny JL, Lleixa-Fortuno M, Gavalda-Espelta E, Queralt-Tomas L, Panisello-Tafalla A, Carles-Lavila M. The costs associated with stroke care continuum: a systematic review. Health Econ Rev. 2023 May 17;13(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13561-023-00439-6. PubMed 37193926 ↗
  • Strilciuc S, Grad DA, Radu C, Chira D, Stan A, Ungureanu M, Gheorghe A, Muresanu FD. The economic burden of stroke: a systematic review of cost of illness studies. J Med Life. 2021 Sep-Oct;14(5):606-619. doi: 10.25122/jml-2021-0361. PubMed 35027963 ↗
  • GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9. PubMed 33069326 ↗
  • He Q, Wang W, Zhang Y, Xiong Y, Tao C, Ma L, Ma J, You C, Wang C. Global, Regional, and National Burden of Stroke, 1990-2021: A Systematic Analysis for Global Burden of Disease 2021. Stroke. 2024 Dec;55(12):2815-2824. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.048033. Epub 2024 Oct 17. PubMed 39417225 ↗
  • Lang CE, Wagner JM, Dromerick AW, Edwards DF. Measurement of upper-extremity function early after stroke: properties of the action research arm test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Dec;87(12):1605-10. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.09.003. PubMed 17141640 ↗

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 Apr 6, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06887231
Lead sponsor
Medical University of Vienna
Responsible party
Prof. Stanisa Raspopovic (Professor, Medical University of Vienna) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 20, 2025
Start date
Mar 17, 2025
Primary completion
Nov 30, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 6, 2025

Study contacts

Andrea Cimolato, PhD
Contact
andrea.cimolato@meduniwien.ac.at
+4314040039224
Anna Sparapani, MSc
Contact
anna.sparapani@meduniwien.ac.at
+4314040039224

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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