Virtual reality (VR)-enhanced indoor hybrid cycling in people with spinal cord injury (SCI) can be comparable to outdoor hybrid cycling.
Method:
Eight individuals with chronic thoracic-lesion SCI performed voluntary arm and electrically assisted leg cycling on a hybrid recumbent tricycle. Exercises were conducted outdoors and indoors incorporating VR technology in which the outdoor environment was simulated on a large flat screen monitor. Electrical stimulation was applied bilaterally to the leg muscle groups. Oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate, energy expenditures, and Ratings of Perceived Exertion were measured over a 30-minute outdoor test course that was also VR-simulated indoors. Immediately after each exercise, participants completed questionnaires to document their perceptual-psychological responses.
Results:
Mean 30-minute VO2 was higher for indoor VR exercise (average VO2−indoor VR-exercise: 1316 ± mL/min vs. outdoor cycling: 1255 ± 53 mL/min; highest VO2–indoor VR-exercise: 1615 ± 67 mL/min vs. outdoor cycling: 1725 ± 67 mL/min). Arm and leg activity counts were significantly higher during indoor VR-assisted hybrid functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling than outdoors; 42% greater for the arms and 23% higher for the legs (P < 0.05). Similar responses were reported for exercise effort and perceptual-psychological outcomes during both modes.
Conclusion:
This study proposes that combining FES and VR technology provides new opportunities for physical activity promotion or exercise rehabilitation in the SCI population, since these modes have similar “dose-potency” and self-perceived effort.
Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sydney Ref. No. 01-2010/12385.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TremblayMS, ColleyRC, SaundersTJ, et al.Physiological and health implications of a sedentary lifestyle. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2010; 35(6):725–740; doi: 10.1139/H10-079.
2.
JacobsPL, NashMS. Exercise recommendations for individuals with spinal cord injury. Sports Med, 2004; 34(11):727–751.
3.
NashMS. Exercise as a health-promoting activity following spinal cord injury. J Neurol Phys Ther, 2005; 29(2):87–103, 106.
4.
WashburnRA, FigoniSF. Physical activity and cardiovascular disease prevention in spinal cord injury: A comprehensive literature review. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil, 1998; 3:16–32.
5.
HettingaDM, AndrewsBJ. Oxygen Consumption during Functional Electrical Stimulation-Assisted Exercise in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury. Sports Med, 2008; 38(10):825–838.
6.
RagnarssonKT. Functional electrical stimulation after spinal cord injury: Current use, therapeutic effects and future directions. Spinal Cord, 2008; 46(4):255–274; doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102091.
7.
NightingaleEJ, RaymondJ, MiddletonJW, et al.Benefits of FES gait in a spinal cord injured population. Spinal Cord, 2007; 45(10):646–657; doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102101.
8.
DavisGM, ServedioFJ, GlaserRM, et al.Cardiovascular responses to arm cranking and FNS-induced leg exercise in paraplegics. J Appl Physiol, 1990; 69(2):671–677.
9.
HasnanN.Physical Activity in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: Exercise and Technologies for Health Promotion [PhD dissertation, Sydney University, NSW, Australia]. Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 2013.
10.
RaymondJ, DavisGM, ClimsteinM, et al.Cardiorespiratory responses to arm cranking and electrical stimulation leg cycling in people with paraplegia. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1999; 31(6):822–828.
11.
HettingaDM, AndrewsBJ. The feasibility of functional electrical stimulation indoor rowing for high-energy training and sport. Neuromodulation, 2007; 10(3):291–297.
12.
VerellenJ, VanlandewijckY, AndrewsB, et al.Cardiorespiratory responses during arm ergometry, functional electrical stimulation cycling, and two hybrid exercise conditions in spinal cord injured. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2007; 2(2):127–132.
13.
HeesterbeekPJC, BerkelmansWA, ThijssenDHJ, et al.Increased physical fitness after 4-week training on a new hybrid FES-cycle in persons with spinal cord injury. Technol Disabil, 2005; 17:103–110.
14.
LeeJ, KimJH, ChoiJY. The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telemat Inform, 2019; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.006
15.
MontoyaD, BarriaP, CifuentesCA, et al.Biomechanical assessment of post-stroke patients' upper limb before and after rehabilitation therapy based on FES and VR. Sensors (Basel), 2022; 22(7):2693.
MayoJJ, KravitzL, WongsathikunJ. Detecting the onset of added cardiovascular strain during combined arm and leg exercise. J Exerc Physiol Online, 2001; 4(3):53–60.
18.
WenderCLA, SandroffBM, KrchD. Rationale and methodology for examining the acute effects of aerobic exercise combined with varying degrees of virtual reality immersion on cognition in persons with TBI. Contemp Clin Trials Commun, 2022; 29:100963; doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100963.
19.
SveistrupH, ThorntonM, BryantonC, et al.Outcomes of intervention programs using flatscreen virtual reality. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2004; 7:4856–4858; doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1404343.
20.
BruckS, WattersPA. Estimating Cybersickness of Simulated Motion Using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ): A Controlled Study. In: 2009 Sixth International Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualization, Tianjin, China; 2009; pp. 486–488.
21.
JangKM, KwonM, NamSG, et al.Estimating objective (EEG) and subjective (SSQ) cybersickness in people with susceptibility to motion sickness. Appl Ergon, 2022; 102:103731; doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103731.
22.
LaessoeU, AbrahamsenS, ZepernickS, et al.Motion sickness and cybersickness—Sensory mismatch. Physiol Behav, 2023; 258:114015; doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2022.114015.
23.
SalgadoDP, RodriguesTB, MartinsFR, et al.The effect of cybersickness of an immersive wheelchair simulator. Procedia Comput Sci, 2019; 160:665–670; doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.030.
24.
McLaughlinJE, KingGA, HowleyET, et al.Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med, 2001; 22(4):280–284; doi: 10.1055/s-2001-13816.
25.
AbelT, PlatenP, Rojas VegaS, et al.Energy expenditure in ball games for wheelchair users. Spinal Cord, 2008; 46(12):785–790; doi: 10.1038/sc.2008.54.
26.
WarmsCA, BelzaBL. Actigraphy as a measure of physical activity for wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Nurs Res, 2004; 53(2):136–143.
27.
SasakiJE, JohnD, FreedsonPS. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport, 2011; 14(5):411–416; doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003.
28.
GrangeCC, BougenotMP, GroslambertA, et al.Perceived exertion and rehabilitation with wheelchair ergometer: comparison between patients with spinal cord injury and healthy subjects. Spinal Cord, 2022; 40(10): 513–518; doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101353.
29.
BorgG.Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA; 1998.
30.
GauvinL, RejeskiWJ. The Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory: Development and initial validation. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 1993; 15(4):403–423.
31.
ThayerRE. The Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory: Development and initial validation. Psychol Rep, 1986; 58:607–614.
32.
DemersL, Weiss-LambrouR, SkaB. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol, 1996; 8(1):3–13; doi: 10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268.
33.
AmesSL, WolffsohnJS, McBrienNA. The development of a symptom questionnaire for assessing virtual reality viewing using a head-mounted display. Optom Vis Sci, 2005; 82(3):168–176.
34.
FornusekC, DavisGM. Cardiovascular and metabolic responses during functional electric stimulation cycling at different cadences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2008; 89(4):719–725.
35.
HasnanN, EktasN, TanhofferAI, et al.Exercise responses during functional electrical stimulation cycling in individuals with spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2013; 45(6):1131–1138; doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182805d5a.
36.
HookerSP, FigoniSF, RodgersMM, et al.Metabolic and hemodynamic responses to concurrent voluntary arm crank and electrical stimulation leg cycle exercise in quadriplegics. J Rehabil Res Dev, 1992; 29(3):1–11.
37.
KraussJC, RobergsRA, DepaepeJL, et al.Effects of electrical stimulation and upper body training after spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1993; 25(9):1054–1061.
38.
MuttonDL, ScreminAM, BarstowTJ, et al.Physiologic responses during functional electrical stimulation leg cycling and hybrid exercise in spinal cord injured subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1997; 78(7):712–718.
39.
RaymondJ, DavisGM, FaheyA, et al.Oxygen uptake and heart rate responses during arm vs combined arm/electrically stimulated leg exercise in people with paraplegia. Spinal Cord, 1997; 35(10):680–685.
40.
RaymondJ, DavisGM, ClimsteinM, et al.Cardiorespiratory responses to arm cranking and electrical stimulation leg cycling in people with paraplegia. Med Sci Sports Exer, 1999.
41.
AllenBC, StubbsKJ, DixonWE. Characterization of the time-varying nature of electromechanical delay during FES-cycling. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2020; 28(10):2236–2245; doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3017444.
42.
Campo-PrietoP, Cancela-CarralJM, Rodríguez-FuentesG. Wearable immersive virtual reality device for promoting physical activity in Parkinson's disease patients. Sensors, 2022; 22(9):3302.
43.
HassandraM, GalanisE, HatzigeorgiadisA. Α virtual reality app for physical and cognitive training of older people with mild cognitive impairment: Mixed methods feasibility study. JMIR Serious Games, 2021; 9(1):e24170; doi: 10.2196/24170.
44.
TheisenD, FornusekC, RaymondJ, et al.External power output changes during prolonged cycling with electrical stimulation. J Rehabil Med, 2002; 34(4):171–175.
45.
ZakM, SikorskiT, WasikM, et al.Frailty Syndrome—Fall risk and rehabilitation management aided by virtual reality (VR) technology solutions: A narrative review of the current literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022; 19(5):2985.
46.
DuffellLD, de N DonaldsonN, NewhamDJ. Why is the metabolic efficiency of FES cycling low?. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2009; 17(3):263–269; doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2009.2016199.
47.
HuntKJ, HosmannD, GrobM, et al.Metabolic efficiency of volitional and electrically stimulated cycling in able-bodied subjects. Med Eng Phys, 2013; 35(7):919–925; doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.08.023.
48.
KangJ, RobertsonRJ, GossFL, et al.Metabolic efficiency during arm and leg exercise at the same relative intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1997; 29(3):377–382.
49.
BlakeOM, WakelingJM. Muscle coordination during an outdoor cycling time trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2012; 44(5):939–948.
