An interventional study of Immersive virtual reality exposure during balance and mobility assessment in Postural Balance, Healthy Adult and Mobility, sponsored by Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-12.
Sponsored by Vrije Universiteit Brussel · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
The goal of this pilot clinical trial is to evaluate the feasibility of a new approach to assessing balance and mobility in everyday situations by performing established clinical tests in a stressful virtual reality environment. The study involves healthy adults aged 18 years and older with no self-reported neurological disorders or history of epilepsy.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Researchers will compare each participant's performance with and without virtual reality to see if the virtual environment changes balance and mobility test results.
Participants will:
382 studies on the registry are indexed under Mobility Limitation; 108 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 11 is below the median of 46 across 317 interventional studies indexed under Mobility Limitation.
Browse Mobility Limitation studies →Vrije Universiteit Brussel is the lead sponsor of 159 studies on the registry; 43 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
All participants complete the Mini-BESTest, Timed Up and Go test, and 10-Meter Walk Test both without a virtual reality headset and while wearing a headset displaying a busy virtual train station. The Timed Up and Go test is performed with and without an additional cognitive task in each condition.
Device: Immersive virtual reality exposure during balance and mobility assessment
Participants wear a standalone virtual reality headset (Meta Quest 3) displaying a busy train-station environment while completing standard balance and mobility assessments. The environment includes moving pedestrians, animated displays, and recorded train-station sounds. Participants undergo a brief familiarisation period before testing.
Proportion of participants completing all planned assessments
Proportion of participants who complete all planned assessments in both non-virtual reality (noVR) and virtual reality (VR) conditions. The predefined feasibility criterion is completion by at least 80% of participants.
Time frame: At the end of the single assessment session on Day 1, after completion or discontinuation of the planned assessments.
Number of virtual reality-related technical issues
technical feasibility: assessed by the number and type of VR-related technical issues encountered
Time frame: From the start of virtual reality system setup to the end of the virtual reality assessments during the single assessment session on Day 1.
Proportion of complete outcome measurements per test and condition
data completeness: quantified as the proportion of complete outcome data per test and condition (criterion: ≥80% complete data)
Time frame: Data recording during all planned tests in the virtual reality and non-virtual reality conditions within the single assessment session on Day 1.
Percentage increase in assessment time with virtual reality compared with no virtual reality
assessment burden: reflected by total assessment time, considered acceptable if VR assessments required no more than 20% additional time compared to noVR conditions
Time frame: From the start to the end of each assessment (mobility and balance assessments) in each condition (virtual reality and non-virtual reality) during the single assessment session on Day 1.
Number of participants experiencing adverse events during assessment
Number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event during the assessment session, including both virtual reality and non-virtual reality conditions, or within 15 minutes after its completion.
Time frame: From the start of the assessment session until 15 minutes after its completion on Day 1, including both virtual reality and non-virtual reality assessments.
Virtual Reality Sickness Questionnaire scores (VRSQ)
The VRSQ is a modified version of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire and consists of nine items assessing symptoms of VR-induced discomfort. These items are grouped into two subdomains: oculomotor discomfort (items 1-4) and disorientation (items 5-9). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("severe"). Subscale scores are normalized and combined to yield a total VRSQ score, with higher scores indicating greater VR sickness.
Time frame: single session, Immediately after completion of the virtual reality session on Day 1.
iGroup Presence Questionnaire subscale scores
The IPQ assesses different dimensions of presence and consists of items grouped into four subscales: General Presence (GP), Spatial Presence (SP), Involvement (INV), and Experienced Realism (ER). Items are rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a stronger sense of presence within the virtual environment.
Time frame: single session, Immediately after completion of the virtual reality session on Day 1.
Within-participant difference in Mini-BESTest total score between virtual reality and non-virtual reality conditions
The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a standardized clinical assessment of dynamic balance and a shortened version of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest). It consists of 14 items covering four balance domains: anticipatory postural adjustments (items 1-3), reactive postural control (items 4-6), sensory orientation (items 7-9), and dynamic gait (items 10-14) (A.3). Each item is scored on a three-level ordinal scale (0-2), resulting in a maximum total score of 28 points, with higher scores indicating better balance performance. For items requiring bilateral assessment (items 3 and 6), the lower score was retained.
Time frame: single session; During Mini-BESTest administration in each condition (virtual reality and non-virtual reality) within the single assessment session on Day 1.
Within-participant difference in single-task and cognitive dual-task Timed Up and Go completion time between virtual reality and non-virtual reality conditions
Participants are instructed to stand up from a chair, walk three meters at a safe and comfortable speed, cross a marked line on the floor, turn around, walk back to the chair, and sit down. The time required to complete the task was recorded in seconds. In addition to the standard single-task TUG, a cognitive dual-task version was administered. During the dual-task TUG, participants were asked to count backwards by threes from a randomly selected number between 20 and 100 while performing the motor task. Both single-task and dual-task TUG were performed under noVR and VR conditions, resulting in four TUG conditions in total.
Time frame: single session; During single-task and cognitive dual-task Timed Up and Go testing in both conditions (virtual reality and non-virtual reality) within the single assessment session on Day 1.
Within-participant difference in comfortable walking speed between virtual reality and non-virtual reality conditions
The 10-meter walk test was used to assess participants' walking speed. Participants started at the 0-meter (m) mark and walked to the 10 m mark. Timing was performed with a stop watch over the central 6 m, beginning 2 m after the start line and ending 2 m before the end line, to allow for acceleration and deceleration phases and to capture steady-state walking speed. Walking speed (m/s) was calculated by dividing the distance (6 m) by the recorded time (seconds). Two trials were performed at the participant's comfortable walking speed, followed by two trials at their fastest walking speed, according to standardized instructions. For each speed condition, the two trials were averaged, and the resulting comfortable and fast gait speeds were documented in meters per second.
Time frame: single session; During comfortable walking speed testing in each condition (virtual reality and non-virtual reality) within the single assessment session on Day 1
Within-participant difference in fast walking speed between virtual reality and non-virtual reality conditions
The 10-meter walk test was used to assess participants' walking speed. Participants started at the 0-meter (m) mark and walked to the 10 m mark. Timing was performed with a stop watch over the central 6 m, beginning 2 m after the start line and ending 2 m before the end line, to allow for acceleration and deceleration phases and to capture steady-state walking speed. Walking speed (m/s) was calculated by dividing the distance (6 m) by the recorded time (seconds). Two trials were performed at the participant's comfortable walking speed, followed by two trials at their fastest walking speed, according to standardized instructions. For each speed condition, the two trials were averaged, and the resulting comfortable and fast gait speeds were documented in meters per second.
Time frame: single session; During fast walking speed testing in each condition (virtual reality and non-virtual reality) within the single assessment session on Day 1.
Plan to share: Yes — De-identified individual participant data underlying the results reported in publications arising from this study will be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request following publication.
Ran from Feb 2025 to primary completion in Feb 2025, 0 months.
Of 199 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Mobility Limitation, half reached primary completion within 18 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 42. This study's 0 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 204 studies reached it within 18 months; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 42.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.