VR-Based Assessment and Rehabilitation of Functional Mobility

  • Adam W. Kiefer
  • Christopher K. Rhea
  • William H. Warren
Chapter

Abstract

The advent of virtual reality (VR) as a tool for real-world training dates back to the mid-twentieth century and the early years of driving and flight simulators. These simulation environments, while far below the quality of today’s visual displays, proved to be advantageous to the learner due to the safe training environments the simulations provided. More recently, these training environments have proven beneficial in the transfer of user-learned skills from the simulated environment to the real world [5, 31, 48, 51, 57]. Of course the VR technology of today has come a long way. Contemporary displays boast high-resolution, wide-angle fields of view and increased portability. This has led to the evolution of new VR research and training applications in many different arenas, several of which are covered in other chapters of this book. This is true of clinical assessment and rehabilitation as well, as the field has recognized the potential advantages of incorporating VR technologies into patient training for almost 20 years [7, 10, 18, 45, 78].

Keywords

Assessment Dynamical Disease Functional Mobility Rehabilitation Tunnel vision Virtual Environment Locomotion Virtual Therapy 

References

  1. 1.
    Apfelbaum H, Pelah A, Peli E (2007) Heading assessment by “tunnel vision” patients and control subjects standing or walking in a virtual environment. ACM Trans Appl Percept 4:1–16Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bank PJM, Roerdink M, Peper CE (2011) Comparing the efficacy of metronome beeps and stepping stones to adjust gait: steps to follow. Exp Brain Res 209:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bardy BG, Warren WH, Kay BA (1996) Motion parallax is used to control postural sway during walking. Exp Brain Res 11:271–282Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blin O, Ferrandez A, Serratrice G (1990) Quantitative analysis of gait in Parkinson patients: increased variability of stride length. J Neurol Sci 98:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bliss JP, Tidwell PD, Guest MA (1997) The effectiveness of virtual reality for administering spatial navigation training to firefighters. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 6:73–86Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloem BR, Hausdorff JM, Visser JE, Giladi N (2004) Falls and freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease: a review of two interconnected, episodic phenomena. Mov Disord 19:871–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks B, McNeil JE, Rose FD (1999) Route learning in a case of amnesia: a preliminary investigation into the efficacy of training in a virtual environment. Neuropsychol Rehabil 9:63–76Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burdea GC (2003) Virtual rehabilitation—benefits and challenges. Methods Inf Med 42:519–523Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutsch JE, Mirelman A (2007) Virtual reality-based approaches to enable walking for people poststroke. Topics Stroke Rehabil 14:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emmett A (1994) Virtual reality helps steady the gait of Parkinson’s patients. Comput Graph World 17:17–18Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fung J, Richards CL, Malouin F, McFadyen BJ, Lamontagne A (2006) A treadmill and motion coupled virtual reality system for gait training post-stroke. CyberPsychol Behav 9:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerin-Lajoie M, Ciombor DM, Warren WH, Aaron RK (2010) Using ambulatory virtual environments for the assessment of functional gait impairment: a proof-of-concept study. Gait Posture 31:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geruschat DR, Turano KA, Stahl JW (1998) Traditional measures of mobility performance and retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci 75:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson JJ (1950) The perception of the visual world. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glass L, Mackey MC (1979) Pathological conditions resulting from instabilities in physiological control systems. Ann N Y Acad Sci 316:214–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gobbetti E, Scatenis R (1998) Virtual reality: past, present and future. In: Riva G, Wiederhold BK, Molinari E (eds) Virtual environments in clinical psychology and neuroscience. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldberg S (1994) Training dismounted soldiers in a distributed interactive virtual environment. U.S. Army Res Inst Newslett 14:9–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grabiner PC, Biswas ST, Grabiner MD (2001) Age-related changes in spatial and temporal gait variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hausdorff JM (2007) Gait dynamics, fractals and falls: Finding meaning in the stride-to-stride fluctuations of human walking. Hum Mov Sci 26:555–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hausdorff JM, Peng C-K, Ladin Z, Wei JY, Goldberger AL (1995) Is walking a random walk? Evidence for long-range correlations in stride interval of human gait. Model Physiol 78:349–358Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haymes S, Guest DM, Heyes A, Johnston A (1996) Mobility of people with retinitis pigmentosa as a function of vision and psychological variables. Optom Vis Sci 73:621–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hove MJ, Spivey MJ, Krumhansl CL (2010) Compatibility of motion facilitates visuomotor synchronization. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 36:1525–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaffe DL, Brown DA, Pierson-Carey CD, Buckley EL, Lew HL (2004) Stepping over obstacles to improve walking in individuals with poststroke hemiplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev 41:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kiefer AW, Bruggeman H, Woods R, Warren W (2012) Obstacle detection during walking by patients with tunnel vision. J Vis 12:183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kizony R, Katz N, Weiss PL (2004) Virtual reality based intervention in rehabilitation: relationship between motor and cognitive abilities and performance within virtual environments for patients with stroke. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on disability, virtual reality and associated technology. Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuyk T, Elliott JL, Biehl J, Fuhr PS (1996) Environmental variables and mobility performance in adults with low vision. J Am Optom Assoc 67:403–409Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lamontagne A, Fung J, McFadyen BJ, Faubert J (2007) Modulation of walking speed by changing optic flow in persons with stroke. J NeuroEng Rehabil 4:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li L, Peli E, Warren WH (2002) Heading perception in patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci 79:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lim I, Wegen EV, Goede CD, Deutekom M, Nieuwboer A, Willems A, Kwakkel G (2005) Effects of external rhythmical cueing on gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 19:695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lintern G, Roscoe JM, Koonce JM, Jefferson M, Segal LD (1990) Transfer of landing skills in beginning flight simulation. Human Factors 32:319–327Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lovie-Kitchin JE, Mainstone JC, Robinson J, Brown B (1990) What areas of the visual field are important for mobility in low vision patients? Clin Vis Sci 5:249–263Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Luo G, Woods RL, Peli E (2009) Collision judgment when using an augmented-vision head-mounted display device. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:4509–4515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mackey MC, Glass L (1977) Oscillation and chaos in physiological control systems. Science 197:287–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McIntosh GC, Brown SH, Rice RR, Thaut MH (1997) Rhythmic auditory-motor facilitation of gait patterns in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 62:22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mirelman A, Maidan I, Herman T, Deutsch JE, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM (2011) Virtual reality for gait training: can it induce motor learning to enhance complex walking and reduce fall risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease? J Gerontol A: Biol Sci Med Sci 66A:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mohler BJ, Thompson WB, Creem-Regehr SH, Willemsen P, Pick HL et al (2007) Calibration of locomotion resulting from visual motion in a treadmill=based virtual environment. ACM Trans Appl Percept 4:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Olney SJ, Richards C (1996) Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part I: characteristics. Gait Posture 4:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Owings T, Grabiner M (2004) Step width variability, but not step length variability or step time variability, discriminates gait of healthy young and older adults during treadmill locomotion. J Biomech 37:935–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pailhous J, Ferrandez A, Fluckiger M, Baumberger B (1990) Unintentional modulations of human gait by optical flow. Behav Brain Res 38:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peli E (2001) Vision multiplexing: an engineering approach to vision rehabilitation device development. Optom Vis Sci 78:304–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peng CK, Havlin S, Stanley HE, Goldberger AL (1995) Quantification of scaling exponents and crossover phenomena in nonstationary heartbeat time series. Chaos 5:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prokop T, Schubert M, Berger W (1997) Visual influence on human locomotion: modulation to changes in optic flow. Exp Brain Res 114:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Riess TJ (1998) Gait and Parkinson’s disease: a conceptual model for an augmented-reality based therapeutic device. In: Riva G, Wiederhold BK, Molinari E (eds) Virtual environments in clinical psychology and neuroscience. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 200–208Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Riess TWS et al (1995) Augmented reality in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. In: Morgan K, Satava M, Sieburg HB (eds) Interactive technology and the new paradigm for healthcare. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 298–302Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rhea CK, Gérin-Lajoie M, Ciombor DMcK, Warren WH, Aaron RK, Recurrence quantification analysis of walking path trajectories in a functional mobility task with imposed constraints. In: Paper presented at the North American Society for Psychology in Sport and Physical Activity, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rhea C, Kiefer A, Warren W, D’Andrea S, Aaron R (2011) Synchronizing to a “noisy” metronome induces corresponding shifts in fractal gait dynamics. In: Paper presented at the North American Society for Psychology in Sport and Physical Activity, Burlington, VTGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rose FD, Attree EA, Brooks BM (2000) Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training. Ergonomics 43:494–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schubert M, Prokop T, Brocke F, Berger W (2005) Visual kinesthesia and locomotion in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shalvoy RM, Bruggeman H, D’Andrea S, Warren W, Aaron RK (2013) Virtual environmental navigation to quantify functional disability in ACL-deficient knees. In: Paper presented at the Orthopedic Research Society, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operations room performance. Ann Surg 236:458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spaulding SJ, Livingston LA, Hartsell HD (2003) The influence of external orthotic support on the adaptive gait characteristics of individuals with chronically unstable ankles. Gait Posture 17:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stephen DG, Stepp N, Dixon JA, Turvey MT (2008) Strong anticipation: sensitivity to long-range correlations in synchronization behavior. Phys A 387:5271–5278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stergiou N, Decker LM (2011) Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: is there a connection? Hum Mov Sci 30:869–888Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tarr MJ, Warren WH (2002) Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nat Neurosci 5:1089–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Thaut MH, McIntosh C, Rice R, Miller RA, Rathbun J, Brault JM (1996) Rhythmic auditory stimulation in gait training for Parkinson’s disease patients. Mov Disord 11:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Torkington J, Smith SGT, Rees BI, Darzi A (2001) Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task. Surg Endosc 15:1076–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Baker FH, Stahl JW, Shapiro MD (2001) Direction of gaze while walking a simple route: persons with normal vision and persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci 78:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Turano KA, Yu D, Hao L, Hicks JC (2005) Optic-flow and egocentric-direction strategies in walking: central vs. peripheral visual field. Vis Res 45:3117–3132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    van Wegen E, de Goede C, Lim I, Rietberg M, Nieuwboer A, Willems A, Jones D (2006) The effect of rhythmic somatosensory cueing on gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci 248:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Van Orden GC (2007) The fractal picture of health and wellbeing. Psychol Sci Agenda 21. http://www.apa.org/science/psa/vanorden.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2008
  62. 62.
    Varraine E, Bonnard M, Pailhous J (2002) Interaction between different sensory cues in the control of human gait. Exp Brain Res 142:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    von Schroeder HP, Coutts RD, Lyden PD, Billings E, Nickel VL (1995) Gait parameters following stroke: a practical assessment. J Rehabil Res Dev 32:25–31Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    von Porat A, Henriksson M, Holmstrom E, Thorstensson CA, Mattsson L, Roos EM (2006) Knee kinematics and kinetics during gait, step and hop in males with a 16 years old ACL injury compared with matched controls. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Warren WH (1995) Constructing an econiche. In: Flach J, Hancock P, Caird J, Vicente K (eds) The ecology of human-machine systems. Erlbaum, Hilldsale, pp 210–237Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Warren WH (2006) The dynamics of perception and action. Psychol Rev 113:358–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Warren WH (2008) Optic flow. In: Basbaum AI, Kaneko A, Shepherd GM, Westheimer G (eds) The senses—a comprehensive reference: vision II (vol 2, Albright TD, Masland R, eds). Academic Press, Oxford, pp 219–230Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Warren WH, Kay BA, Duchon AP, Zosh W, Sahuc S (2001) Optic flow is used to control human walking. Nat Neurosci 4:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Warren WH, Kay BA, Yilmaz E (1996) Visual control of posture during walking: functional specificity. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 22:818–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Warren WH, Morris M, Kalish M (1988) Perception of translational heading from optical flow. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 14:646–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Webber CL, Zbilut JP (1994) Dynamical assessment of physiological systems and states using recurrence plot strategies. J Appl Physiol 76:965–973Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Webber CL, Zbilut JP (2005) Recurrence quantification analysis of nonlinear dynamical systems. In: Riley MA, Van Orden GC (eds). Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences. National Science Foundation, Arlington, pp 353–400. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/pac/nmbs/nmbs.jsp. Accessed 28 Sept 2006
  73. 73.
    Webster KE, Merory JR, Wittwer JE (2006) Gait variability in community dwelling adults with Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 20:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Weiss PL, Kizony R, Feintuch U, Katz N (2006) Virtual reality in neurorehabilitation. In: Selzer ME, Cohen L, Gage FH, Clarke S, Duncan PW (eds) Textbook of neural repair and neurorehabilitation, vol 2. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Weiss PL, Rand D, Katz N, Kizony R (2004) Video capture virtual reality as a flexible and effective rehabilitation tool. J Rehabil Res Dev 1:12Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    West BJ (2006) Where medicine went wrong: rediscovering the path to complexity. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., HackensackGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Willems AM, Nieuwboer A, Chavret F, Desloovere K, Dom R, Rochester L, Wegen EV (2006) The use of rhythmic auditory cues to influence gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the differential effect for freezers and non-freezers, an explorative study. Disabil Rehabil 28:721–728Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wilson PN, Foreman N, Tlauka M (1996) Transfer of spatial information from a virtual to a real environment in physically disabled children. Disabil Rehabil 18:633–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A (2002) Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 16:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam W. Kiefer
    • 1
  • Christopher K. Rhea
    • 2
  • William H. Warren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological SciencesBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologyUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations