Comparing Immersive and Non-Immersive Virtual Reality with Conventional Therapy for Improving Upper Limb Function in Adults with Subacute Stroke Hemiplegia

What this Trial Is About

Researchers are evaluating the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality compared to non-immersive virtual reality, both combined with conventional therapy, in improving upper limb function in people with subacute hemiplegia following a stroke. This randomized controlled trial includes male and female participants aged 28 to 55 years who meet specific motor and cognitive criteria. The study aims to better understand how different virtual reality therapies can enhance motor recovery in stroke patients. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group 1 receives 15 minutes of conventional therapy followed by 45 minutes of immersive virtual reality therapy using the Oculus Quest 3 headset, which offers advanced motion tracking for task-specific exercises. Group 2 receives 15 minutes of conventional therapy followed by 45 minutes of non-immersive virtual reality therapy using devices like the Neofect Smartboard and Tyromotion Myro, which use gamified and sensor-based exercises to improve upper limb mobility and fine motor skills. Throughout the study, researchers assess participants with tests such as the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the upper extremity and the Graded Wolf Motor Function Test to measure motor improvements. Quality of life is also evaluated using the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale. Assessments occur at the start and again six weeks after the intervention. The study is single-blinded, with the assessor unaware of group assignments, and participants engage in therapy sessions involving stretching, strengthening, and virtual reality training during the study period.

Immersive v/s Non-immersive Virtual Reality in Enhancing Upper Limb Functions Among Individuals With Subacute Stage Hemiplegia