Extended reality to assess post-stroke manual dexterity: contrasts between the classic box and block test, immersive virtual reality with controllers, with hand-tracking, and mixed-reality tests.

BACKGROUND: Recent technological advancements present promising opportunities to enhance the frequency and objectivity of functional assessments, aligning with recent stroke rehabilitation guidelines. Within this framework, we designed and adapted different manual dexterity tests in extended reality (XR), using immersive virtual reality (VR) with controllers (BBT-VR-C), immersive VR with hand-tracking (BBT-VR-HT), and mixed-reality (MD-MR). OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aimed to assess and compare the validity of the BBT-VR-C, BBT-VR-HT and MD-MR to assess post-stroke manual dexterity. Secondary objectives were to evaluate reliability, usability and to define arm kinematics measures. METHODS: A sample of 21 healthy control participants (HCP) and 21 stroke individuals with hemiparesis (IHP) completed three trials of the traditional BBT, the BBT-VR-C, BBT-VR-HT and MD-MR. Content validity of the different tests were evaluated by asking five healthcare professionals to rate the difficulty of performing each test in comparison to the traditional BBT. Convergent validity was evaluated through correlations between the scores of the traditional BBT and the XR tests. Test-retest reliability was assessed through correlations between the second and third trial and usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Lastly, upper limb movement smoothness (SPARC) was compared between IHP and HCP for both BBT-VR test versions. RESULTS: For content validity, healthcare professionals rated the BBT-VR-HT (0[0-1]) and BBT-MR (0[0-1]) as equally difficult to the traditional BBT, whereas they rated BBT-VR-C as more difficult than the traditional BBT (1[0-2]). For IHP convergent validity, the Pearson tests demonstrated larger correlations between the scores of BBT and BBT-VR-HT (r = 0.94;p < 0.001), and BBT and MD-MR (r = 0.95;p < 0.001) than BBT and BBT-VR-C (r = 0.65;p = 0.001). BBT-VR-HT and MD-MR usability were both rated as excellent, with median SUS scores of 83[57.5-91.3] and 83[53.8-92.5] respectively. Excellent reliability was found for the BBT-VR-C (ICC = 0.96;p < 0.001), BBT-VR-HT (ICC = 0.96;p < 0.001) and BBT-MR (ICC = 0.99;p < 0.001). The usability of the BBT-VR-C was rated as good with a median SUS of 70[43.8-83.8]. Upper limb movements of HCP were significantly smoother than for IHP when completing either the BBT-VR-C (t = 2.05;p = 0.043) and the BBT-VR-HT (t = 5.21;p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The different XR manual tests are valid, short-term reliable and usable tools to assess post-stroke manual dexterity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04694833 ; Unique identifier: NCT04694833, Date of registration: 11/24/2020.

Performing a shortened version of the Action Research Arm Test in immersive virtual reality to assess post-stroke upper limb activity.

BACKGROUND: To plan treatment and measure post-stroke recovery, frequent and time-bounded functional assessments are recommended. With increasing needs for neurorehabilitation advances, new technology based methods, such as virtual reality (VR) have emerged. Here, we developed an immersive VR version of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT-VR) to complement neurorehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the validity, usability and test-retest reliability of the ARAT-VR among individuals with stroke, healthcare professionals and healthy control subjects (HCS). METHODS: Among the 19 items of the ARAT, 13 items were selected and developed in immersive VR. 11 healthcare professionals, 30 individuals with stroke, and 25 HCS were recruited. Content validity was assessed by asking healthcare professionals to rate the difficulty of performing each item of the ARAT-VR in comparison to the classical Action Research Arm Test (ARAT-19). Concurrent validity was first measured using correlation (Spearman tests) between the ARAT-VR and ARAT-19 scores for the individuals with stroke, and second through correlation and comparison between the scores of the ARAT-VR and the reduced version of the ARAT (ARAT-13) for both individuals with stroke and HCS (Wilcoxon signed rank tests and Bland-Altman plots). Usability was measured using the System Usability Scale. A part of individuals with stroke and HCS were re-tested following a convenient delay to measure test-retest reliability (Intra-class correlation and Wilcoxon tests). RESULTS: Regarding the content validity, median difficulty of the 13 ARAT-VR items (0[0 to - 1] to 0[0-1]) evaluated by healthcare professionals was rated as equivalent to the classical ARAT for all tasks except those involving the marbles. For these, the difficulty was rated as superior to the real tasks (1[0-1] when pinching with the thumb-index and thumb-middle fingers, and 1[0-2] when pinching with thumb-ring finger). Regarding the concurrent validity, for paretic hand scores, there were strong correlations between the ARAT-VR and ARAT-13 (r = 0.84), and between the ARAT-VR and ARAT-19 (r = 0.83). Usability (SUS = 82.5[75-90]) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99; p < 0.001) were excellent. CONCLUSION: The ARAT-VR is a valid, usable and reliable tool that can be used to assess upper limb activity among individuals with stroke, providing potential to increase assessment frequency, remote evaluation, and improve neurorehabilitation. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04694833 ; Unique identifier: NCT04694833, Date of registration: 11/24/2020.