|
| Source | Participants | Intervention | Comparator | Sessions | Primary outcome | Blinding | Main findings |
|
| Regenbrecht et al., 2011 [78] | 24 healthy subjects | Augmented mirror box (AMB) | Optical mirror box | 1 | No | No blinding | The mirror box technique is able to fool or confuse individual’s perceptions and beliefs. The AMB produced strong results in this regard. |
|
| Hoermann et al., 2012 [24] | 21 healthy subjects | Video-mediated (advanced) augmented reflection
technology | Optical mirror box | 1 | No | No blinding | Video-mediated manipulations of hand-position reversals produced equal to stronger effects of ownership compared with the mirror reflection. |
|
| Kang et al., 2012 [21] | 18 healthy subjects and 18 hemiplegic patients | Virtual mirror therapy | Relaxation or real mirror | 1 | No | No blinding | Corticospinal excitability was facilitated to a greater extent in the virtual mirror paradigm than in the real mirror. |
|
| Yang et al., 2014 [22] | 12 stroke patients with pusher syndrome | Computer-generated visual feedback training | Mirror visual feedback training | 3 times a week during 3 weeks | No | Simple blinding (assessors) | The computer-generated visual feedback training more effectively aided recovery from pusher syndrome and balance (but no significant difference was noted between groups for lower extremity motor function). |
|
| In et al., 2016 [23] | 25 patients with chronic stroke | Virtual reality reflection therapy (VRRT) | Standard mirror therapy | 5 time a week during 4 weeks | No | Simple blinding (assessors) | Applying VRRT might be even more beneficial than conventional rehabilitation program alone in improving affected lower limb function. |
|
