Deans' stroke musings: Visualizing the third dimension in virtual training environments for neurologically impaired persons: Beneficial or disruptive?

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Visualizing the third dimension in virtual training environments for neurologically impaired persons: Beneficial or disruptive?

At least they're trying to figure out whats going on. Your doctor and therapist need to know this stuff so ask them. 2.5 d?
http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/9/1/73/abstract

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Many contemporary systems for neurorehabilitation utilize 3D virtual environments (VEs) that allow for training patients' hand or arm movements. In the current paper we comparatively test the effectiveness of two characteristics of VEs in rehabilitation training when utilizing a 3D haptic interaction device: Stereo Visualization (monoscopic vs stereoscopic image presentation) and Graphic Environment (2.5D vs 3D).

Method

An experimental study was conducted using a factorial within-subjects design. Patients (10 MS, 8 CVA) completed three tasks, each including a specific arm-movement along one of three directional axes (left-right, up-down and forward-backward).

Results

The use of stereoscopy within a virtual training environment for neurorehabilitation of CVA and MS patients is most beneficial when the task itself requires movement in depth. Further to this, the 2.5D environment (What does this mean?) yields the highest efficiency and accuracy in terms of patients' movements. These findings were, however, dependent on participants' stereoscopic ability.

Conclusion

Despite the performance benefits of stereoscopy, our findings illustrate the non-triviality of choices of using stereoscopy, and the type of graphic environment implemented. These choices should be made with the task and target group, and even the individual patient in mind.