Skip to content

Utilizing Gaming Mechanics to Optimize Telerehabilitation Adherence in Persons With Stroke

Utilizing Gaming Mechanics to Optimize Telerehabilitation Adherence in Persons With Stroke

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03985761
Enrollment
33
Registered
2019-06-14
Start date
2019-09-08
Completion date
2023-07-01
Last updated
2024-09-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Stroke

Keywords

Stroke, Upper extremity, Hand, Arm, Virtual reality, Telerehabilitation, Gaming, Hemiparesis, Dexterity

Brief summary

This trial studies the impact of motivational strategies designed by the gaming industry on adherence to a home tele-rehabilitation program designed to improve hand function in persons with stroke. A growing literature suggests that the extended practice of challenging hand tasks can produce measurable changes in hand function in persons with stroke. Current health care delivery systems do not support this volume of directly supervised rehabilitation, making it necessary for patients to perform a substantial amount of activity at home, unsupervised. Unfortunately, adherence to unsupervised home exercise regimens is quite poor in this population. The investigator's goal is to assess the impact of several well-established game design strategies: 1) Scaffolded increases in game difficulty 2) In-game rewards 3) Quests with enhanced narrative. The investigator's will utilize these enhancements to study their impact on motivation to perform a tele-rehabilitation- based home exercise program, adherence to the program and changes in hand function. The proposed study will utilize a system of novel rehabilitation technologies designed to facilitate home exercise performance. Subjects will perform 3 simulated rehabilitation activities supported by a passive exoskeleton, an infrared camera and software that will allow subjects to exercise at home. The investigator's will investigate: 1) Differences in measures of motivation elicited by motivationally enhanced simulations and un-enhanced control versions.2) The impact of motivational enhancements on actual adherence to a tele-rehabilitation program in persons with stroke and 3) The impact of motivational enhancement on improvements in hand function achieved by these subjects. This proposal will address a critical gap in modern rehabilitation - adherence to autonomous rehabilitation programs. Patient participation in unsupervised rehabilitation is one of the assumptions underpinning our health care system. This said, no data collected to date supports that adherence is acceptable. The technology and methodology in this proposal are an important step towards leveraging extensive research and development done by the computer gaming industry into improved rehabilitation practice.

Detailed description

1. Purpose/Specific Aims The overarching aim of this study is to provide a mechanism for patients to engage in progressive motor practice for a meaningful time period. The investigator's aim to improve on the positive outcomes demonstrated in patients in the chronic phase and the pilot work being done on patients in the acute in-patient phase post stroke to determine whether functional recovery can be further improved using a home based system. Aim 1: Evaluate compliance with Home-Telerehabilitation simulated hand/arm gaming activities and two computer game groups, one with motivation enhanced: Home Training Motivation Enhanced (HTme) simulations and one with non-enhanced simulations: Home Training Unenhanced (HTu) versions. Hypothesis: Participants in the HTme group will show significant compliance as compared to the control group (HTu). Aim 2: Evaluate the effectiveness of motivation enhanced HTme home-based virtually simulated hand/arm gaming activities for individuals with stroke as compared to a program unenhanced HTu versions of the same simulations. Hypothesis: Participants completing HTme training will exhibit significantly improved clinical, kinematic and neurophysiological outcomes as compared to the control group (HTu). Aim 3: Evaluate the impact of the motivation enhancements designed into computer games to provide a more enjoyable training experience. Hypothesis: Enjoyment of the games will be a more valid predictor of compliance than personal factors. 2. Background and Significance Studies have shown that sustained hand rehabilitation training is important for continuous improvement and maintenance of function following a stroke. It is unimaginably difficult to pursue education, employment and community participation without being able to independently use one's hands. The primary goal of this study is to test an exciting new technology that can be easily used in the home for long-term hand and upper extremity training. Recovery of hand function post brain injury is particularly recalcitrant to currently available interventions. To date, the best efforts of groups studying traditionally presented as well as technology-based therapeutic interventions for the hemiplegic hand and arm have produced measurable changes in motor function and motor control but fall far short of major reductions in disability. If the amount of therapy is critical to rehabilitation, our current institutional limitations undermine the probabilities for successful outcomes. After discharge from the inpatient stay, access to rehabilitation therapy can be difficult for some patients. This is due in part to inadequate insurance, lack of transportation, and the patient's dependence on their caregiver. Having access to long-term rehabilitation training anywhere and at any time is necessary for sub-acute and chronic patients to continuously improve their functional abilities. 3. Research Design and Methods This study will be a single blind randomized controlled trial. Subjects will be blinded to the purpose of the study. All outcome measures will be performed by a therapist blinded to group assignment. A controlled trial will be utilized to determine the additive effect of presenting rehabilitation activities in a virtual environment as compared to standard upper extremity exercise. The investigators will randomize subjects to treatment and control groups using a computerized random number generator. 3.1. Duration of Study Each subject will perform a pre-study evaluation, train using one of the protocols for three months, perform a post study evaluation as well as one and six month retention evaluations. 3.2 Study Sites Testing and initial training will take place in the Bergen Building of the Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences Campus in Newark. Home training will take place in subjects' homes. 3.3 Sample Size Justification The investigators will seek sufficient power to detect a clinically significant difference in the Wolf score changes in these two pre-planned, primary comparisons. To evaluate these effects of training, we will assume a power level of .8 and a significance level of 0.05. With presumed correlation among repeated measures of 0.1 and effect size of 0.3, a sample size of 25 subjects in each of the two groups (HTme and HTu) to observe a significant effect for the first comparison (G\*Power, version 3.1.5) is necessary. Although the investigators will screen for patients with homogeneous impairments, by its nature stroke is an extremely variable condition. Due to possible subject attrition, the investigators will use a total of 30 subjects in each of the two groups. 3.4 Subject Recruitment Subjects will be recruited through flyers, stroke support groups, and clinician referrals. The investigators will assume that approximately 15-20% of the population will satisfy our inclusion criteria based on our previous experience with upper extremity rehabilitation in this population. Hence the investigators will approach 300 persons. 3.5 Consent Procedures Example: The study will be explained to the potential subject by the study staff, the consent will be read, and their questions will be answered. If participants wish to enroll, the subject will sign the consent form. The study staff obtaining consent will also sign and date the consent form, and a copy will be given to the subject sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with federal & state law and institutional policy. If the study staff member performing the consent process identifies issues suggesting that the prospective subject may not be capable of participating in the consent process due to dementia, a Folstein Mini Mental Status will be performed. Prospective subjects screening positive for dementia will not be included in the study. 3.5.1 Subject Costs and Compensation There are no costs for the subjects. The subjects will be paid 100$ at each of the retention tests. 4. Study Variables 4.1 Independent Variables or Interventions The two computer game groups, Motivation Enhanced (HTme) and Motivation Non-Enhanced (HTu) will use the NJIT- Home Virtual Rehabilitation System (HoVRS) to play a series of computer games developed to practice movement of the hand and fingers. Subjects will first come into our lab, perform pre-tests as well as a pre-intervention training session. Then a physical therapist and engineer will set up the apparatus in subject's home and will train them on how to use the system and play the games in their home during the first week. The physical therapist and engineer will be in contact with subjects throughout the training and will visit subjects' homes as needed if problems are encountered. Additionally, the system allows the therapist to remotely monitor each day's activity. 4.1.1 Device Description NJIT HoVRS has two sub-systems to deliver home-based training: 1) a patient based platform to provide the training and 2) a server based online data logging and reporting system. In the patient's home, a cross platform virtual reality training application runs video games (developed in the Unity 3D game engine using the language C#) on their home computer. 4.1.11 Hardware The Leap Motion Controller (LMC) a commercially developed infrared tracking device developed for home video game control is used to capture motion of the hand and arm movement without requiring wearable sensors. The device's USB controller reads the sensor data into its own local memory and performs any necessary resolution adjustments. This data is then streamed via USB to the Leap Motion image Application Programming Interface (API). From there, we programmed the system to feed tracking data into virtual reality activities by calling the Leap Motion API. If the patient's arm is weak and cannot support the hand against gravity above the Leap Motion Controller, a commercially available, spring-based arm support, will be provided to the subject (Figure 1). The arm support provides 12 different levels of passive support allowing it to accommodate a wide range of patient sizes and strength levels. It requires a single setting that can be provided during the patient's initial evaluation 4.1.1.2 Software Patients will either use their own home computer or will be provided with a computer if needed. A user-friendly Graphic User Interface (GUI) lists all of the training activities allowing patients to choose which activity they want to begin with using just one mouse click. Currently twelve games have been developed, each one designed to focus on training a specific hand or arm movement such as wrist rotation or finger individuation. All games are downloadable via HoVRS website. 4.2 Dependent Variables: See Outcomes Measures 4.3 Risk of Harm There is less than minimal risk involved. The virtual reality (VR) experiments are non-invasive and pose no obvious risk. Transient fatigue of the hand and arm are possible, but this risk is not greater than that posed by normal daily activities following a stroke. 4.4 Potential for Benefit The benefits of taking part in this study may be: Patient may regain better use of their hand and arm. However, it is possible that patients might receive no direct personal benefit from taking part in this study. 5. Data Handling and Statistical Analysis All efforts will be made to keep subjects' personal information confidential. All subject names will be removed from the data and the data will be tagged using a coded identification (ID) number. Demographic, clinical outcome and survey data will first be recorded on paper. All kinematic and computerized performance data will be collected on computer. These computer files will be identified by the coded subject ID number. All data will be transferred to an Excel spreadsheet with subjects identified by this same ID number. Spreadsheets will be stored on a drive that is password protected. Data will only be accessible to study staff and will be retained for seven years. The link between subject identity and subject ID number will be destroyed when data collection is completed. The primary outcome measures and all secondary outcome measures described above will be subjected to a repeated measured analysis of variance, with between-group factors Therapy Type (HTme, HTu) and within-group factor Test (Before, Post, One Month retention, Six Months Retention). Post-hoc analyses of the Therapy Type by Test interaction effects will focus on the Month 1 versus Month 6 comparison. The investigators will be quantifying training effects by comparing group means as well as by percent change in performance, and by comparing the recovery curves obtained from Tests 1-4. All clinical outcomes used are well established measures of upper extremity functional recovery with published minimum clinically important differences which will be used to evaluate the significance of our findings. 7\. Reporting Results 7.1 Individual Results No disease screening data will be collected. Patient's changes on clinical tests will be shared with them during testing sessions. These sessions are conducted by licensed Physical Therapists who have training to help persons with stroke interpret clinical examination findings. 7.2 Aggregate Results Subjects will not be informed of aggregate findings. 7.3 Professional Reporting De-identified, aggregate findings will be published in professional journals and presented at scientific meetings.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALHome Telerehabilitation using HoVRS

The Home Virtual Rehabilitation System (HoVRS) integrates a Leap Motion controller, a passive arm support and a suite of custom designed hand rehabilitation simulations. The Leap Motion provides camera based measurement of finger joint positions, allowing for integrated virtual arm and finger training. If the patient's arm is severely impaired, a forearm orthosis that counter-balances gravity to provide graded support to the arm during activity is issued to the subject. In this study, we utilize 3 task-based simulations that train hand manipulation and arm transport. One simulation trains hand opening integrated with pronation and supination, a second trains wrist movement, by presenting targets that subjects navigate a plane over and around buildings to collect, a third simulation, trains shoulder and elbow disassociation in a horizontal plane integrated with hand opening.

Sponsors

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
CollaboratorNIH
New Jersey Institute of Technology
CollaboratorOTHER
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. unilateral stroke 2. score of 22 or greater on the Montreal Cognitive Assesment 3. Score of 1 or better on extinction and inattention portion of NIH Stroke Scale 4. Fugl-Meyer (FM) between 36-58/66 ( 5. Score of 1 or better on language portion of NIHSS 6. intact cutaneous sensation (ability to detect \<4.17 Newton stimulation using Semmes-Weinstein nylon filaments)

Exclusion criteria

Orthopedic issues that would limit the ability to perform regular upper extremity activity

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Total Intervention TimeDay one through day ninety of intervention periodTotal intervention time performed by patient during study period
Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment12 weeksDifference between post test and pretest Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment Scores. Scores between 0 and 66. The Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment is a clinical scale that is a composite measure of 33 performance based items, scored 0,1 or 2. Total score reflects the sum of the 33 individual item scores. Higher scores reflect better performance.
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory12 weeksDifference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Scores range = 0-84. Higher score equals higher levels of intrinsic motivation.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Box and Blocks Test12 weeksDifference between posttest and pretest Box and Blocks Test scores. Score reflects the number of blocks transported from one receptacle to another in sixty seconds using the stroke impaired hand. Higher scores reflect better performance.
Average Intervention Time Per Intervention DayDay one through day ninety of intervention periodAverage intervention time performed by the subject
Action Research Arm Test12 weeks.Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Action Research Arm Test. Range = 0 - 57. Higher scores = better function.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Stroke Impact Scales Participation Subscale12 weeks.Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Stroke Impact Scales Participation Subscale. Range = 0 - 40. Higher scores = higher levels of participation.
Stroke Impact Scale - Hand Subscale12 weeks.Difference between posttest and pretest score on the Stroke Impact Scales Hand Subscale. Range = 0 - 25. Higher score = better recovery. Subscales reported individually.
Stroke Impact Scale - Activities of Daily Living Subscale12 weeks.Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Stroke Impact Scales Activities of Daily Living subscale. Range = 0-50. Higher score = better recovery.
Total Training Sessions12 weeksNumber of training sessions performed by subject during training period

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

48 subjects screened 15 pre-assignment screen failures due to insufficient motor or sensory function

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTme
12 Weeks Training - Motivation enhanced games
15
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)
12 weeks training - unenhanced, algorithm controlled games,
13
Total28

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject23

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicHome Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)TotalHome Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTme
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
2 Participants7 Participants5 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
11 Participants21 Participants10 Participants
Age, Continuous55.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.5
56.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.7
58 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.1
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants4 Participants2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
11 Participants24 Participants13 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
2 Participants3 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
10 Participants23 Participants13 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
13 participants28 participants15 participants
Severity of stroke as measured by Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment43 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12
43 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13
43 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14
Sex: Female, Male
Female
9 Participants22 Participants13 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
4 Participants6 Participants2 Participants
Time since stroke in months63 Months
STANDARD_DEVIATION 84
47.3 Months
STANDARD_DEVIATION 64.8
29 Months
STANDARD_DEVIATION 28.8

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 170 / 16
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 170 / 16
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 170 / 16

Outcome results

Primary

Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Scores range = 0-84. Higher score equals higher levels of intrinsic motivation.

Time frame: 12 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeIntrinsic Motivation Inventory5.62 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.4
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Intrinsic Motivation Inventory4.22 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.7
p-value: 0.483ANOVA
Primary

Total Intervention Time

Total intervention time performed by patient during study period

Time frame: Day one through day ninety of intervention period

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeTotal Intervention Time966 Minutes
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Total Intervention Time680 Minutes
p-value: 0.182ANOVA
Primary

Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment

Difference between post test and pretest Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment Scores. Scores between 0 and 66. The Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment is a clinical scale that is a composite measure of 33 performance based items, scored 0,1 or 2. Total score reflects the sum of the 33 individual item scores. Higher scores reflect better performance.

Time frame: 12 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeUpper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment5.23 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment6.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
p-value: 0.296ANOVA
Secondary

Action Research Arm Test

Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Action Research Arm Test. Range = 0 - 57. Higher scores = better function.

Time frame: 12 weeks.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeAction Research Arm Test5.62 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.9
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Action Research Arm Test3.47 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.9
p-value: 0.22ANOVA
Secondary

Average Intervention Time Per Intervention Day

Average intervention time performed by the subject

Time frame: Day one through day ninety of intervention period

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeAverage Intervention Time Per Intervention Day20.9 MinutesStandard Deviation 9
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Average Intervention Time Per Intervention Day20.9 MinutesStandard Deviation 11
p-value: 0.995ANOVA
Secondary

Box and Blocks Test

Difference between posttest and pretest Box and Blocks Test scores. Score reflects the number of blocks transported from one receptacle to another in sixty seconds using the stroke impaired hand. Higher scores reflect better performance.

Time frame: 12 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeBox and Blocks Test3.7 Blocks moved in 60 secondsStandard Deviation 3.1
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Box and Blocks Test2.9 Blocks moved in 60 secondsStandard Deviation 3
p-value: 0.538ANOVA
Other Pre-specified

Stroke Impact Scale - Activities of Daily Living Subscale

Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Stroke Impact Scales Activities of Daily Living subscale. Range = 0-50. Higher score = better recovery.

Time frame: 12 weeks.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeStroke Impact Scale - Activities of Daily Living Subscale3.39 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Stroke Impact Scale - Activities of Daily Living Subscale1.77 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.9
Other Pre-specified

Stroke Impact Scale - Hand Subscale

Difference between posttest and pretest score on the Stroke Impact Scales Hand Subscale. Range = 0 - 25. Higher score = better recovery. Subscales reported individually.

Time frame: 12 weeks.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeStroke Impact Scale - Hand Subscale1.81 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Stroke Impact Scale - Hand Subscale0.82 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.7
Other Pre-specified

Stroke Impact Scales Participation Subscale

Difference between score measured three months after baseline and the score measured at baseline on the Stroke Impact Scales Participation Subscale. Range = 0 - 40. Higher scores = higher levels of participation.

Time frame: 12 weeks.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeStroke Impact Scales Participation Subscale2.05 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Stroke Impact Scales Participation Subscale1.66 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.7
Other Pre-specified

Total Training Sessions

Number of training sessions performed by subject during training period

Time frame: 12 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Home Telerehabilitation_Motivation Enhanced HTmeTotal Training Sessions47.7 SessionsStandard Deviation 16.4
Home Telerehabilitation_Unenhanced (HTu)Total Training Sessions37.1 SessionsStandard Deviation 18.4
p-value: 0.121ANOVA

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 6, 2026