Kinect-Based Rehabilitation Systems for Stroke Patients: A Scoping Review

Almasi, Sohrab; Ahmadi, Hossein; Asadi, Farkhondeh; Shahmoradi, Leila; Arji, Goli; Alizadeh, Mojtaba; Kolivand, Hoshang

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4339054

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Limitations Conclusion Additional Points Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4339054 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4339054

Kinect-Based Rehabilitation Systems for Stroke Patients: A Scoping Review

Sohrab Almasi,¹Hossein Ahmadi,²Farkhondeh Asadi,¹Leila Shahmoradi,³Goli Arji,⁴Mojtaba Alizadeh,⁵and Hoshang Kolivand⁶

Academic Editor: Defne Kaya

Received18 Oct 2021

Accepted04 Feb 2022

Published27 Mar 2022

Abstract

Background and Objective. Kinect-based rehabilitation is an effective solution for creating motivation and promoting adherence to rehabilitation programs in stroke patients. The current study was aimed at examining the effects of Kinect-based rehabilitation systems on performance improvement, domains of use, and its limitations for stroke patients. Method. This study was conducted according to Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. To investigate the evidence on the effects of Kinect-based rehabilitation, a search was executed in five databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and IEEE) from 2010 to 2020. Results. Thirty-three articles were finally selected by the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies had been conducted in the US (22%). In terms of the application of Kinect-based rehabilitation for stroke patients, most studies had focused on the rehabilitation of upper extremities (55%), followed by balance (27%). The majority of the studies had developed customized rehabilitation programs (36%) for the rehabilitation of stroke patients. Most of these studies had noted that the simultaneous use of Kinect-based rehabilitation and other physiotherapy methods has a more noticeable effect on performance improvement in patients. Conclusion. The simultaneous application of Kinect-based rehabilitation and other physiotherapy methods has a stronger effect on the performance improvement of stroke patients. Better effects can be achieved by designing Kinect-based rehabilitation programs tailored to the characteristics and abilities of stroke patients.

1. Introduction

Stroke is the second most prevalent cause of mortality and disability worldwide. The prevalence of stroke will increase due to the aging of the population. Moreover, stroke happens in a larger number of young populations in low- and middle-income communities [1]. It damages the sensory, motor, perception, visual, and cognitive systems, disrupts the patients’ ability to conduct daily activities, and impacts their quality of life and level of independence [2, 3].

Rehabilitation in stroke is a purposeful process to help the patients regain and retain their social, intelligence, mental, and physical abilities while also helping them perform their daily and social activities with some level of independence [4, 5]. Rehabilitation exercises should include specific, repetitive, intensive, meaningful, and motivational tasks to improve the patients’ motor performance [6]. Starting rehabilitation immediately after a stroke greatly contributes to patients’ performance improvement, and effective rehabilitation depends on the patients’ adherence to exercise programs and their regular performance at home and physiotherapy clinics. The process of rehabilitation in stroke patients is a long one, and patients’ follow-up of this process is seriously limited due to its heavy costs, the long distance to rehabilitation centers, lack of access to such centers, patients’ motor limitations, and problems associated with commuting to the health-care centers [6–8]. Moreover, patients’ motivation for rehabilitation, which is a key factor for following the treatment and improving the outcome, is reduced because of the prolonged duration of rehabilitation [7].

The use of technology in rehabilitation is increasing rapidly. One of these technologies is video games, which is known as an effective intervention in rehabilitation. Video games are a useful solution for stroke patients who are unable to perform daily activities in the real environment and also motivate and encourage people to do rehabilitation exercises and improve motor function in stroke patients [8]. Video games are a new and useful technology that allows the user to interact with a three-dimensional environment. Studies have shown that this technology is an effective, safe, feasible solution that facilitates rehabilitation treatment [9]. In addition, video games increase motivation and increase patient satisfaction and involvement [10, 11]. Studies show that video games are used for a wide range of disorders including balance, cognition, mobility, and improved motor function. Video games are a promising tool because they provide the repetitive, task-based, reward-based, and interactive situations needed to restore patient function after brain injury [12]. Kinect-based video games are a good tool for providing rehabilitation exercises in the form of games due to the features of Kinect and the limitations of stroke patients [13, 14]. The application of Kinect-based rehabilitation as a low-cost and flexible method is rapidly expanding [15]. Kinect contains an RGB camera (R for red, G for green, and B for blue), a depth sensor, and a layer of microphones to record body movements and detect faces and voices [16]. Microsoft Kinect is a markless motion capture system that presents innovative and exciting methods for offering a more enjoyable treatment and promoting motivation in and adherence to the treatment [17, 18]. A unique feature of Kinect is providing a method for interaction with the game without using any controllable or wearable device [19, 20].

Another feature of Kinect for patients is performing rehabilitation exercises at home with no need for a physiotherapist [21]. By providing exciting and innovative rehabilitation methods, Kinect enhances adherence to treatment through adding entertaining features to the treatment, lessening costs compared to traditional rehabilitation, and making rehabilitation more accessible [17, 22]. Two types of games, commercial and customized, are used in Kinect-based rehabilitation. Some studies have utilized commercial Kinect-based games for rehabilitation. Although these games had positive effects on the performance improvement of stroke patients, since they had been developed for healthy people for entertainment purposes and required a high level of speed and ability, stroke patients could not easily perform them due to their limited and diverse abilities [8, 23]. On the other hand, some studies have developed games customized to the abilities of stroke patients. These games, known as serious games, were aimed for something beyond mere entertainment, and the results show that they positively affect the performance improvement of patients [24, 25].

Today, serious games, especially exergames, are used by therapists as a tool for rehabilitation purposes [26, 27]. Exergaming involves physical activity and is directly related to the sport in the game, not to the game or sport itself. Many studies have introduced exercise games in rehabilitation to motivate, engage, and increase patient adherence to their treatments [28, 29]. Research confirms the motivational benefits of using exergames in rehabilitation regardless of their age or illness [30].

Based on the findings of systematic reviews on the clinical and technical evaluation of the Kinect sensor, the use of this rehabilitation system is acceptable due to its cost-effectiveness and adequate precision in movement tracking [22, 31, 32]. Various studies have been conducted on the validity and accuracy of Kinect in tracking movements and the effect of Kinect on rehabilitation and motor recovery. Research on the validity and accuracy of the Kinect sensor indicates that this sensor has sufficient precision in movement tracking [20, 31, 33, 34]. Studies on the effects of Kinect on the performance improvement of patients with neurological disorders (such as Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis) have also deemed this method effective [17, 31, 32, 35].

The aim of scoping review is to determine, retrieve, and summarize the research pertinent to special issues to identify the key concepts supporting a research domain and the major sources and available evidence [36]. Scoping reviews are conducted to answer more general questions. One of their advantages is determining the feasibility and necessity of conducting a systematic review in a specific domain [36, 37]. So far, no comprehensive study has been conducted on Kinect-based rehabilitation for stroke patients. Therefore, this scoping review focused on the effects of Kinect-based rehabilitation for stroke patients and its limitations and challenges. Accordingly, the following research questions were posed: (1)What is the effect of Kinect-based rehabilitation systems on the performance of stroke patients?(2)What is the main application domain of a Kinect-based rehabilitation system for stroke patients?(3)What are the limitations of utilizing Kinect-based rehabilitation systems for stroke patients?

2. Methods

The current scoping review adopted Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology [36]. Based on this framework, a scoping review has five essential steps and one selective step: (1) identification of the research question; (2) recognition of pertinent researches; (3) selection of studies; (4) charting the data; and 5) summarizing and disseminating the results and (6) consultation exercise. The sixth step was omitted in this review. This scoping review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [38].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The main inclusion criteria for this review were as follows: (i)English articles published in peer-reviewed journals and conferences with an available full text(ii)Articles published from 1 January 2010 to 13 October 2020(iii)Articles using Kinect-based rehabilitation for stroke patients(iv)Articles clinically evaluating and using Kinect for tracking movements and interactions in the rehabilitation system

2.2. Exclusion Criteria

Furthermore, the most important exclusion criteria for this review were as follows: (i)Review articles, case reports, case studies or study protocols, letter to the editor, correspondences, and conference papers (absence or lack of access to the full text)(ii)Articles in languages other than English(iii)Articles merely evaluating the accuracy and validity of Kinect and not clinically evaluating the use of Kinect for improving the conditions of stroke patients(iv)Articles examining conditions other than stroke

2.3. Search Strategy and Information Sources

Articles were searched in five online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus). The search strategy comprised MeSH terms and other relevant keywords, and the two groups of terms were combined using Boolean operators AND and OR. The search was limited to the 2010-2020 period since Microsoft’s first generation of Kinect sensors was introduced in November 2010 [10, 11]. The key terms used in this review was as follows: ((Stroke OR stroke rehabilitation) AND (Kinect OR Microsoft Kinect OR Xbox-Kinect OR virtual reality OR virtual reality exposure therapy OR virtual Reality exposure therapy OR virtual reality OR video games OR video games)). A summary of the characteristics of the included studies is provided in Table 1.

2.4. Study Selection

The electronic search was performed in the five mentioned databases. Also, hand-searching was performed in Google Scholar, and 58 articles were retrieved. The retrieved articles were then inputted to EndNote, and the duplicates were identified and removed by using the software. Subsequently, the titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed by two authors according to the research questions and objectives. In the next step, the full text of the papers was examined by two authors concerning the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements between the authors were resolved by discussions.

2.5. Data Extraction, Charting, and Synthesis

Data extraction was executed by using a form including the first author’s name (reference), year of publication, country, the domain of rehabilitation, type of rehabilitation program (commercial vs. customized), main findings, and technical limitations of the Kinect-based rehabilitation program. The data were obtained by two authors, and disagreements were resolved upon discussions. Finally, the data extracted from the articles were inputted to Microsoft Excel for classification, synthesis, and reporting of the results.

3. Results

3.1. Selection of Sources of Evidence

Totally, 1196 articles were retrieved by searching in the databases. In the next step, by using EndNote, 184 duplicates were removed, and 954 articles remained. Subsequently, the titles and abstracts of the papers were reviewed, 856 papers were removed, and 98 remained. Then, the full text of the articles was examined, 64 articles were removed, and finally, 34 articles were included in this scoping review. Figure 1 displays the article selection process.

3.2. Characteristics of the Sources of Evidence

The data extracted from the articles were recorded in the data extraction form (Table 1). The majority of the studies had been conducted in the US (, 22%), followed by Spain and South Korea (, 15%).

Following the invention of Kinect in 2010, the number of studies on the use of Kinect-based rehabilitation programs for stroke patients increased (Figure 2). However, no study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria had been conducted in 2010, 2011, and 2014. The majority of the studies had been conducted in 2018 ().

3.3. Classification of the Studies Based on the Rehabilitation Domain

In the analysis of the domain of rehabilitation for stroke patients, most studies had focused on upper extremities (), followed by balance (), cognitive rehabilitation (), lower body (), and functional recovery () (Figure 3).

In terms of the effects of Kinect-based rehabilitation programs, the majority of the studies had evaluated it as positive leading to the performance improvement of stroke patients [39–48]. Most studies had also mentioned that, compared to the use of routine treatment methods alone, the simultaneous application of Kinect-based rehabilitation and other physiotherapy methods has a stronger effect on the performance improvement of stroke patients [18, 24, 48–60].

Furthermore, the results revealed that the use of a Kinect-based rehabilitation program increases the repetitions of the movements, improves motivation, promotes the quality of life, and enhances adherence to treatment [18, 41–44, 46, 61, 62]. Some studies had employed telerehabilitation, reporting that Kinect-based rehabilitation is a safe and effective method for providing standard rehabilitation at home, whereby patients do not have to be present at physiotherapy clinics [59, 61, 63–66]. There was only one study in which the use of Kinect-based rehabilitation had the same effect on the intervention and control groups, and there was no difference between the two groups [67].

3.3.1. Upper Extremities

The results of this study showed that 56% of the articles were in the field of upper limb rehabilitation. Patients’ movements in the study were measured using Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Brunnstrom Motor Recovery Stage, which used Kinect-based rehabilitation games to improve patients’ shoulder, elbow, wrist, and finger movements and ultimately to improve daily activities. There was an increase in patients’ quality of life.

3.3.2. Balance

The results of this study showed that 26% of the articles were in the field of balance rehabilitation. In the studies studied using Box and Block Test, Barthel Index, and Berg Balance Scale, it was measured that the use of Kinect-based rehabilitation games improved patients’ balance.

3.3.3. Cognitive Rehabilitation

The results of this study showed that 8% of the articles were in the field of cognitive rehabilitation. The results of the studies showed that the use of Kinect-based rehabilitation games improved patients’ attention, spatial awareness, and generalized cognitive functioning.

3.3.4. Lower Body

The results of this study showed that 5% of the articles were in the field of lower limb rehabilitation. In these studies, the Timed Up and Go Test and Fugl-Meyer Assessment erew used to measure lower limb movements, and the results showed that it improved lower limb movement.

3.4. Technical Limitations of Kinect-Based Rehabilitation Systems

In terms of the type of rehabilitation program used for stroke patients, the majority of the studies had designed the rehabilitation program tailored to the status and abilities of the patients (, 38%), while the other studies had utilized commercial Kinect-based programs (, 62%). Among the studies using commercial Kinect-based programs, technical limitations mostly included not challenging enough, lack of customization to the patients’ abilities, complexity and difficulty of use, dependency on the therapist due to complexity, and the content of the programs being radically different from the daily activities of stroke patients [44, 48, 50, 53, 56, 68]. In the studies designing games customized to the abilities of stroke patients, technical limitations included the low speed of the games, the use of inappropriate feedback, insufficient precision of movement tracking, the complexity of games and difficulty of use, inappropriate user interface, dependence on the therapist, and not customized to and compatibility with the abilities of patients (Figure 4) [41, 47, 52, 54, 61, 65].

4. Discussion

This scoping review investigated the effect of using Kinect-based rehabilitation systems on the performance improvement of stroke patients, the rehabilitation domain, and technical limitations. The reviewed articles were published since 2010, when Microsoft-invented Kinect was examined [10, 11]. The results revealed that Kinect-based virtual rehabilitation leads to motor recovery in stroke patients. This type of rehabilitation is an effective and promising method owing to its low cost, flexibility, providing repetitive exercises, and motivation for the patients.

The most important feature of Kinect is that there is no need for any wearables during rehabilitation [20]. This feature of Kinect-based rehabilitation increases the repetitions of the movements, promotes motivation, enhances the quality of life, and increases adherence to treatment [18, 41–44, 46, 61, 62]. Moreover, due to its cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and telerehabilitation feature, the use of Kinect-based rehabilitation is a safe and effective method for providing standard rehabilitation at home [59, 61, 63–66]. The results of this study show that the use of Kinect-based rehabilitation games improves motor function in the upper and lower limbs and balance and improves cognitive function in improving stroke patients. These results are in line with the results of other similar studies in the field of using Kinect-based rehabilitation in improving the motor function of the upper [69], lower limbs [70], balance [71], and cognition [72].

Most studies had also mentioned that, compared to the use of routine treatment methods alone, the simultaneous application of Kinect-based rehabilitation and other physiotherapy methods has a stronger effect on the performance improvement of stroke patients. Regarding the positive outcome of simultaneous use of Kinect-based rehabilitation and other physiotherapy methods, the results of the present research are consistent with those of other papers [73, 74].

Despite all these advantages, some studies utilizing commercial Kinect-based programs reported different effects on the performance improvement of stroke patients; the reason was the limitations of these programs such as not challenging enough, not being customized to the patients’ abilities, complexity, dependency on the therapist due to the complexity of the games, and the difference between the content of the games with patients’ daily activities [43, 44, 50, 56, 57, 68]. Although some of these programs will be beneficial in combination with other rehabilitation methods, as they have been designed for the healthy population and entertainment purposes, they require rapid and difficult movements that may not be compatible with the abilities of stroke patients [23, 75].

On the other hand, some studies had developed games customized to the abilities of stroke patients and reported positive effects on their motor recovery [42, 50, 53, 56, 61, 62]. These results are in line with the findings of other researches [25, 73]. To promote the effects of Kinect-based rehabilitation programs, it is necessary to pay attention to the characteristics of the patients and their abilities in the program’s development process. The use of clear feedback, presenting challenges appropriate for patients’ abilities [60], telemonitoring patients by the therapist [20], using rewards [69], and including the socialization feature to induce a sense of competition between patients, is essential in this process.

To promote neural plasticity in rehabilitation programs, tailor-made rehabilitation systems are promising tools for patients. Furthermore, appropriate feedback should be provided to actively engage patients in better motor recovery. One of the essential elements in rehabilitation programs is to keep the patients motivated and engaged. In this way, caregivers should provide suitable feedback to correctly execute the exercise. The caregiver should change the different parameters of exercise to make it challenging and simultaneously possible for executing.

Since the therapist cannot regularly monitor and evaluate the patient’s condition in Kinect-based rehabilitation systems, using different sensors such as brain and body wearable sensors can receive more data to help better assess the patient. Captured data should be interpreted and presented by utilizing graphs to simply be understood by physicians. To enhance the efficacy of rehabilitation systems, the user interface should be designed by considering both patients’ restrictions and caregivers’ needs.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

One limitation of the current study was the diversity in the type of studies and the small samples of some studies, which pose problems in drawing definitive conclusions about the positive effects of Kinect-based rehabilitation on the motor recovery of stroke patients. Lack of access to the full text of some papers was another limitation. About the positive effect of customized Kinect-based rehabilitation programs which are tailored to the abilities of stroke patients, it is suggested more research be conducted on the design framework of such programs and their effects on the motor recovery of stroke patients. Furthermore, developing the rehabilitation systems should concentrate on a range of complex factors such as patients living environment, social environment, different challenges of daily living, and patients’ skills in using various technologies. Furthermore, developing systems with a concentration on supporting personal goals and performing the rehabilitative exercise in a competitive atmosphere may increase progress over time. It will be necessary to conduct different clinical trials in large sample size, as well as different devices to determine which factors have a greater effect in achieving a better outcome. Furthermore, performing a meta-analysis study to investigate whether rehabilitation programs are beneficial in improving patients function in stroke is essential.

6. Conclusion

Because of some limitations such as the costs of rehabilitation, the long distance to rehabilitation centers, lack of access to such centers, patients’ motor limitations, and commute problems, patients with stroke lose motivation to follow treatment. The application of Kinect-based rehabilitation is an effective solution for creating motivation and improving adherence to rehabilitation programs in stroke patients. Kinect-based rehabilitation will be more effective on the performance improvement of these patients if used as a complementary technique in combination with other rehabilitation methods. Furthermore, to promote effects on motor recovery, it is essential to pay attention to the design of rehabilitation programs customized to the abilities of stroke patients.

Additional Points

Key messages. (i) Kinect-based rehabilitation is an effective and promising solution that improves the motivation, adherence to treatment, and motor function of stroke patients. (ii) Compared to the use of routine treatment methods alone, the simultaneous application of Kinect-based rehabilitation and other physiotherapy methods has a stronger effect on the performance improvement of stroke patients. (iii) Kinect-based rehabilitation programs developed based on the abilities of stroke patients have more pronounced effects on performance improvement compared to commercial Kinect-based programs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (grant no. 38639_31_02_97).

References

M. Katan and A. Luft, “Global burden of stroke,” Seminars in Neurology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 208–211, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hochstenbach, G. Prigatano, and T. Mulder, “Patients’ and relatives’ reports of disturbances 9 months after stroke: subjective changes in physical functioning, cognition, emotion, and behavior,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 86, no. 8, pp. 1587–1593, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Faria-Fortini, S. M. Michaelsen, J. G. Cassiano, and L. F. Teixeira-Salmela, “Upper extremity function in stroke subjects: relationships between the international classification of functioning, disability, and health domains,” Journal of Hand Therapy, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 257–265, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Rensink, M. Schuurmans, E. Lindeman, and T. Hafsteinsdottir, “Task-oriented training in rehabilitation after stroke: systematic review,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 737–754, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Lang, K. R. Lohse, and R. L. Birkenmeier, “Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke,” Current Opinion in Neurology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 549–555, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Saposnik, M. Levin, and for the Stroke Outcome Research Canada (SORCan) Working Group, “Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis and implications for clinicians,” Stroke, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1380–1386, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Maclean, P. Pound, C. Wolfe, and A. Rudd, “The concept of patient motivation: a qualitative analysis of stroke professionals’ attitudes,” Stroke, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 444–448, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Lee, “Effects of training using video games on the muscle strength, muscle tone, and activities of daily living of chronic stroke patients,” Journal of Physical Therapy Science, vol. 25, no. 5, p. 595, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cho, J. Ku, Y. K. Cho et al., “Development of virtual reality proprioceptive rehabilitation system for stroke patients,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 258–265, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-H. Chen, L.-L. Huang, and C.-H. Wang, “Developing a digital game for stroke patients’ upper extremity Rehabilitation – Design, Usability and Effectiveness Assessment,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 6–12, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhang, “Microsoft Kinect sensor and its effect,” IEEE Multimedia, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 4–10, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Tatla, N. Shirzad, K. R. Lohse et al., “Therapists' perceptions of social media and video game technologies in upper limb rehabilitation,” JMIR Serious Games, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Staiano and R. Flynn, “Therapeutic uses of active videogames: a systematic review,” Games for Health Journal, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 351–365, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Almasi, L. Shahmoradi, N. N. Ansari, and R. Honarpishe, “Kinect-based virtual rehabilitation for upper extremity motor recovery in chronic stroke,” in 2020 International Serious Games Symposium (ISGS), pp. 51–60, Tehran, Iran, December, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Zirbel, X. Zhang, and C. Hughes, “The VRehab system: a low-cost mobile virtual reality system for post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation for medically underserved populations,” in 2018 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC)), pp. 1–8, San Jose, CA, USA, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
F. A. N. Rashid, N. S. Suriani, and A. Nazari, “Kinect-based physiotherapy and assessment: a comprehensive Review,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1176–1187, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Webster, O. Celik, and rehabilitation, “Systematic review of Kinect applications in elderly care and stroke rehabilitation,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 108, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lloréns, E. Noé, C. Colomer, and M. Alcañiz, “Effectiveness, usability, and cost-benefit of a virtual reality–based telerehabilitation program for balance recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 418–425, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Ebert, V. Metsis, and F. Makedon, “Development and evaluation of a unity-based, Kinect-controlled avatar for physical rehabilitation,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pp. 1-2, Corfu, Greece, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Bonnechère, B. Jansen, P. Salvia et al., “Validity and reliability of the Kinect within functional assessment activities: comparison with standard stereophotogrammetry,” Gait & Posture, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 593–598, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Knippenberg and A. Spooren, “Opportunities of markerless motion detection systems for use in neurological rehabilitation: a qualitative study on patient and therapist perspective,” Austin Journal of Robotics & Automation, vol. 3, pp. 1–5, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Mousavi Hondori and M. Khademi, “A review on technical and clinical impact of Microsoft Kinect on physical therapy and rehabilitation,” Journal of Medical Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 846514, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Taylor, D. McCormick, T. Shawis, R. Impson, and M. Griffin, “Activity-promoting gaming systems in exercise and rehabilitation,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1171–1186, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. B. Brokaw, E. Eckel, B. R. Brewer, and H. Care, “Usability evaluation of a kinematics focused Kinect therapy program for individuals with stroke,” Technology and Health Care, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 143–151, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-J. Chang, S.-F. Chen, and J.-D. Huang, “A Kinect-based system for physical rehabilitation: a pilot study for young adults with motor disabilities,” Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2566–2570, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Valladares-Rodríguez, R. Pérez-Rodríguez, L. Anido-Rifón, and M. Fernández-Iglesias, “Trends on the application of serious games to neuropsychological evaluation: a scoping review,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 64, pp. 296–319, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ghisio, K. Kolykhalova, G. Volpe et al., “Designing a platform for child rehabilitation exergames based on interactive sonification of motor behavior,” in Proceedings of the 4th EAI International Conference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good, pp. 208–213, Bologna, Italy, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Proffitt, M. Sevick, C. Y. Chang, and B. Lange, “User-centered design of a controller-free game for hand rehabilitation,” Games Health Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 259–264, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Avola, L. Cinque, G. L. Foresti, and M. R. Marini, “An interactive and low-cost full body rehabilitation framework based on 3D immersive serious games,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 89, pp. 81–100, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Barry, B. Galna, and L. Rochester, “The role of exergaming in Parkinson's disease rehabilitation: a systematic review of the evidence,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 33, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Clark, Y.-H. Pua, K. Fortin et al., “Validity of the Microsoft Kinect for assessment of postural control,” Gait & Posture, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 372–377, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Knippenberg, J. Verbrugghe, I. Lamers, S. Palmaers, A. Timmermans, and A. Spooren, “Markerless motion capture systems as training device in neurological rehabilitation: a systematic review of their use, application, target population and efficacy,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 61, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-R. Díaz-Monterrosas, R. Posada-Gómez, A. Martinez Sibaja, A. Aguilar-Lasserre, U. Juárez Martínez, and J. Trujillo-Caballero, “A brief review on the validity and reliability of Microsoft Kinect sensors for functional assessment applications,” Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 131–136, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Galna, G. Barry, D. Jackson, D. Mhiripiri, P. Olivier, and L. Rochester, “Accuracy of the Microsoft Kinect sensor for measuring movement in people with Parkinson's disease,” Gait & Posture, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1062–1068, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Peters, C. M. Godfrey, H. Khalil, P. McInerney, D. Parker, and C. B. Soares, “Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews,” International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 141–146, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Arksey and L. O'Malley, “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19–32, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Munn, M. D. J. Peters, C. Stern, C. Tufanaru, A. McArthur, and E. Aromataris, “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 143, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin et al., “PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 169, no. 7, pp. 467–473, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Maier, B. R. Ballester, N. Leiva Bañuelos, E. Duarte Oller, and P. F. M. J. Verschure, “Adaptive conjunctive cognitive training (ACCT) in virtual reality for chronic stroke patients: a randomized controlled pilot trial,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 42, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Mokhtar, M. Atteya, and M. Rawash, “Virtual reality Xbox 360 Kinect training for stroke patients with hemiplegia,” Bioscience Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 672–676, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. H. Foreman and J. R. Engsberg, “A virtual reality tool for measuring and shaping trunk compensation for persons with stroke: design and initial feasibility testing,” Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, vol. 6, no. 6, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Boone, T. J. Wolf, and J. R. Engsberg, “Combining virtual reality motor rehabilitation with cognitive strategy use in chronic stroke,” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 73, no. 4, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. L. Aramaki, R. F. Sampaio, A. Cavalcanti, and F. C. M. S. E. Dutra, “Use of client-centered virtual reality in rehabilitation after stroke: a feasibility study,” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 622–631, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. G. Schaham, G. Zeilig, H. Weingarden, and D. Rand, “Game analysis and clinical use of the Xbox-Kinect for stroke rehabilitation,” International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 323–330, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W.-w. Liao, S. McCombe Waller, and J. Whitall, “Kinect-based individualized upper extremity rehabilitation is effective and feasible for individuals with stroke using a transition from clinic to home protocol,” Cogent Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, article 1428038, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Moldovan, L. Tric, R. Ursu et al., “Virtual rehabilitation programme using the MIRA platform, Kinect and Leap motion sensors in an 81 years old patient with ischemic stroke,” in 2017 E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB), pp. 325–328, Sinaia, Romania, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Maier, N. L. Bañuelos, B. R. Ballester, E. Duarte, and V. PFMJ, “Conjunctive rehabilitation of multiple cognitive domains for chronic stroke patients in virtual reality,” in International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 947–952, London, UK, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. C. Lee, C. L. Huang, S. H. Ho, and W. H. Sung, “The effect of a virtual reality game intervention on balance for patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Games for Health Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 303–311, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Norouzi-Gheidari, A. Hernandez, P. S. Archambault, J. Higgins, L. Poissant, and D. Kairy, “Feasibility, Safety and efficacy of a virtual reality exergame system to supplement upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke: a pilot randomized clinical trial and proof of principle,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 113, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Cano-Mañas, S. Collado-Vázquez, J. Rodríguez Hernández, A. J. Muñoz Villena, and R. Cano-De-La-Cuerda, “Effects of video-game based therapy on balance, postural control, functionality, and quality of life of patients with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2020, no. 13, Article ID 5480315, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Ho, F. C. Yang, R. C. Lin et al., “Impact of virtual reality-based rehabilitation on functional outcomes in patients with acute stroke: a retrospective case-matched study,” Journal of Neurology, vol. 266, no. 3, pp. 589–597, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. S. Kim, S. Cho, S. H. Park, J. Y. Lee, S. Kwon, and N. J. Paik, “A low cost Kinect-based virtual rehabilitation system for inpatient rehabilitation of the upper limb in patients with subacute stroke,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 97, no. 25, article e11173, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ikbali Afsar, I. Mirzayev, O. Umit Yemisci, and S. N. Cosar Saracgil, “Virtual reality in upper extremity rehabilitation of stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3473–3478, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. V. Grigoras, D. Matei, and E. B. Ignat, “Non-immersive virtual reality for upper limb rehabilitation in stroke survivors - a feasibility study,” Balneo Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 232–239, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aşkın, E. Atar, H. Koçyiğit, and A. Tosun, “Effects of Kinect-based virtual reality game training on upper extremity motor recovery in chronic stroke,” Somatosensory & Motor Research, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Türkbey, S. Kutlay, and H. Gök, “Clinical feasibility of Xbox Kinect TM training for stroke rehabilitation: a single-blind randomized controlled pilot study,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 49, no. 1, p. 22, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Park, D. G. Lee, K. Lee, and G. Lee, “Effects of virtual reality training using Xbox Kinect on motor function in stroke survivors: a preliminary study,” Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2313–2319, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Shin, S. B. Park, and S. H. Jang, “Effects of game-based virtual reality on health-related quality of life in chronic stroke patients: a randomized, controlled study,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 63, pp. 92–98, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Sin and G. Lee, “Additional virtual reality training using Xbox Kinect in stroke survivors with hemiplegia,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 92, no. 10, pp. 871–880, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Wiederhold and G. Riva, “Balance recovery through virtual stepping exercises using Kinect skeleton tracking: a followup study with chronic stroke patients,” Annual review of cybertherapy telemedicine: Advanced technologies in the Behavioral, Social Neurosciences, vol. 181, pp. 108–112, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
K. M. Triandafilou, D. Tsoupikova, A. J. Barry, K. N. Thielbar, N. Stoykoy, and D. G. Kamper, “Development of a 3D, networked multi-user virtual reality environment for home therapy after stroke,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 88, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Tsoupikova, K. Triandafilou, K. Thielbar, G. Rupp, F. Preuss, and D. Kamper, “Multi-user virtual reality therapy for post-stroke hand rehabilitation at home,” Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, vol. 14, no. 2, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
J. P. Held, B. Ferrer, R. Mainetti et al., “Autonomous rehabilitation at stroke patients home for balance and gait: safety, usability and compliance of a virtual reality system,” European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 545–553, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-L. Lai, C.-M. Tseng, D. Erdenetsogt, T.-K. Liao, Y.-L. Huang, and Y.-F. Chen, “A Kinect-based system for balance rehabilitation of stroke patients,” IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, vol. E99.D, no. 4, pp. 1032–1037, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Proffitt and B. Lange, “Feasibility of a customized, in-home, game-based stroke exercise program using the Microsoft Kinect® sensor,” International Journal of Telerehabilitation, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 23, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. K. A. Singh, N. A. M. Nordin, N. A. Abd Aziz, B. K. Lim, and L. C. Soh, “Effects of substituting a portion of standard physiotherapy time with virtual reality games among community-dwelling stroke survivors,” BMC Neurology, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 199, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Shahmoradi, S. Almasi, H. Ahmadi et al., “Virtual reality games for rehabilitation of upper extremities in stroke patients,” Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, vol. 26, pp. 113–122, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Sheehy, A. Taillon-Hobson, H. Sveistrup, M. Bilodeau, C. Yang, and H. Finestone, “Sitting balance exercise performed using virtual reality training on a stroke rehabilitation inpatient service: a randomized controlled study,” PM & R : The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 754–765, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Al-Whaibi, M. S. Al-Jadid, H. R. ElSerougy, and W. M. Badawy, “Effectiveness of virtual reality-based rehabilitation versus conventional therapy on upper limb motor function of chronic stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, vol. 27, pp. 1–15, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. C. Peng, L. Yin, and Y. Cao, “Effectiveness of virtual reality in the rehabilitation of motor function of patients with subacute stroke: a meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 12, article 639535, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Darekar, B. J. McFadyen, A. Lamontagne, and J. Fung, “Efficacy of virtual reality-based intervention on balance and mobility disorders post-stroke: a scoping review,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 46, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. D. Cicerone, D. M. Langenbahn, C. Braden et al., “Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 519–530, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. E. Laver, S. George, S. Thomas, J. E. Deutsch, and M. Crotty, “Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 12, no. 2, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pollock, G. Baer, P. Campbell et al., “Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke,” Stroke, vol. 45, no. 10, p. e202, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Thomson, A. Pollock, C. Bugge, and M. Brady, “Commercial gaming devices for stroke upper limb rehabilitation: a systematic review,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 479–488, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Adomavičienė, K. Daunoravičienė, R. Kubilius, L. Varžaitytė, and J. Raistenskis, “Influence of new technologies on post-stroke rehabilitation: a comparison of Armeo spring to the Kinect system.,” Medicina, vol. 55, no. 4, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Sohrab Almasi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1358

Downloads

1139

Citations