Rehabilitation interventions involving virtual reality (VR) technology have been developed for the promotion of functional independence post stroke. A scoping review was performed to examine the efficacy of VR-based interventions on balance and mobility disorders post stroke. Twenty-four articles in the English language examining VR game-based interventions and outcomes directed at balance and mobility disorders were included. Various VR systems (customized and commercially available) were used as rehabilitation tools. Outcome measures included laboratory and clinical measures of balance and gait. Outcome measures of dynamic balance showed significant improvements following VR-based interventions as compared to other interventions. Further, it was observed that VR-based intervention may have favorable effects in improving walking speed and the ability to deal with environmental challenges, which may also facilitate independent community ambulation. VR-based therapy thus has the potential to be a useful tool for balance and gait training for stroke rehabilitation. Utilization of motor learning principles related to task-related training may have been an important factor leading to positive results. Other principles such as repetition, feedback etc. were used in studies but were not explored explicitly and may need to be investigated to further improve the strength of results. Lastly, robust study designs with appropriate attention towards the intensity and dose-response aspects of VR training, clear study objectives and suitable outcomes would further aid in determining evidence-based efficacy for VR game-based interventions in the future.

Background: Virtual reality (VR) is an innovative tool for sensorimotor rehabilitation increasingly being employed in clinical and community settings. Despite the growing interest in VR, few studies have determined the validity of movements made in VR environments with respect to real physical environments. The goal of this study was to compare movements done in physical and virtual environments in adults with motor deficits to those in healthy individuals. Methods: The participants were 8 healthy adults and 7 adults with mild left hemiparesis due to stroke. Kinematics of functional arm movements involving reaching, grasping and releasing made in physical and virtual environments were analyzed in two phases: 1) reaching and grasping the ball and 2) ball transport and release. The virtual environment included interaction with an object on a 2D computer screen and haptic force feedback from a virtual ball. Temporal and spatial parameters of reaching and grasping were determined for each phase. Results: Individuals in both groups were able to reach, grasp, transport, place and release the virtual and real ball using similar movement strategies. In healthy subjects, reaching and grasping movements in both environments were similar but these subjects used less wrist extension and more elbow extension to place the ball on the virtual vertical surface. Participants with hemiparesis made slower movements in both environments compared to healthy subjects and during transport and placing of the ball, trajectories were more curved and interjoint coordination was altered. Despite these differences, patients with hemiparesis also tended to use less wrist extension during the whole movement and more elbow extension at the end of the placing phase. Conclusion: Differences in movements made by healthy subjects in the two environments may be explained by the use of a 2D instead of a 3D virtual environment and the absence of haptic feedback from the VR target. Despite these differences, our findings suggest that both healthy subjects and individuals with motor deficits used similar movement strategies when grasping and placing a ball in the two reality conditions. This suggests that training of arm movements in VR environments may be a valid approach to the rehabilitation of patients with motor disorders.

Walking speed, which is often reduced after stroke, can be influenced by the perception of optic flow (OF) speed. The present study aims to: 1) compare the modulation of walking speed in response to OF speed changes between persons with stroke and healthy controls and 2) investigate whether virtual environments (VE) manipulating OF speed can be used to promote volitional changes in walking speed post stroke.

Design: Single-blind randomised clinical trial.Objective: To compare the effects of three 8-week rehabilitation programmes on symptoms and functional limitations of runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP).Methods: Sixty-nine runners with PFP were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: (1) education on symptoms management and training modifications (education); (2) exercise programme in addition to education (exercises); (3) gait retraining in addition to education (gait retraining). Symptoms and functional limitations were assessed at baseline (T₀), and after 4, 8 and 20 weeks (T₄, T₈and T₂₀) using the Knee Outcome Survey of the Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) and visual analogue scales (VASs) for usual pain, worst pain and pain during running. Lower limb kinematics and kinetics during running, and isometric strength were also evaluated at T₀and T₈. The effects of rehabilitation programmes were assessed using two-way analysis of variance.Results: No significant group × time interactions (p<0.447) were found for KOS-ADLS and VASs. All three groups showed similar improvements at T₄, T₈and T₂₀compared with T₀(p<0.05). Only the exercises group increased knee extension strength following rehabilitation (group × time: p<0.001) and only the gait retraining group (group × time: p<0.001) increased step rate (+7.0%) and decreased average vertical loading rate (−25.4%).Conclusion: Even though gait retraining and exercises improved their targeted mechanisms, their addition to education did not provide additional benefits on symptoms and functional limitations. Appropriate education on symptoms and management of training loads should be included as a primary component of treatment in runners with PFP.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02352909).