Hemineglect (HN) is a post-stroke condition, frequently defined as an impairment in finding spatial targets within an egocentric frame of reference, where the stimulus is coded relative to the self. However, the egocentric reference frame can change with the presence of another person. Immersive virtual reality (IVR) offers several advantages over paper-and-pencil tests typically used to assess HN, such as a realistic and controlled environment, standardised stimulus presentation, and sensitive response acquisition. We developed a new serious game in IVR to assess HN. Here we investigated (1) the feasibility and user experience of this serious game, and (2) the effect of the presence of an avatar on HN.
Methods
We first tested a group of 61 control individuals (CI), followed by a group of post-stroke 11 individuals without HN (SI:HN-), 6 with HN (SI:HN+), and 17 resampled age matched group of control individuals (CI). All participants performed the “Peach test”, which required them to find and respond to a target presented among distractors, either alone or in the presence of an avatar. We measured response time (RT) and omissions. The SI:HN- and SI:HN + groups also completed a paper-and-pencil test for HN and a user experience questionnaire.
Results
The first analysis of results with CI showed no differences in responding to the target when in ipsi- compared to contra-lateral spaces, nor in peri- compared to extra-personal spaces. There were also no differences in responding to the target in the no-avatar condition relative to the two avatars conditions. In the second analysis, SI:HN + were slower than SI:HN- and CI. Although an interaction between group and Laterality was predicted, the results showed that there was no Laterality effect for any of the groups. An interaction between group and proximity, showed that both SI groups were slower in the extra- compared to peri-personal spaces. The user experience was globally positively rated by the SI.
Conclusion
We developed a serious game in IVR for the assessment of HN. Although most our findings were inconclusive, the Peach test showed excellent user experience results.
Trial registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04694833, Date of registration: 11/24/2020.
BarrettAMBuxbaumLJCoslettHB, et al.Cognitive rehabilitation interventions for neglect and related disorders: moving from bench to bedside in stroke patients. J Cogn Neurosci.2006; 18: 1223–1236.
2.
VallarG. Spatial hemineglect in humans. Trends Cogn Sci.1998; 2: 87–97.
3.
MesulamM-M. Spatial attention and neglect: parietal, frontal and cingulate contributions to the mental representation and attentional targeting of salient extrapersonal events. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser B1999; 354: 1325–1346.
4.
DuncanJBundesenCOlsonA, et al.Systematic analysis of deficits in visual attention. J Exp Psychol: Gen1999; 128: 450.
5.
BuxbaumFerraroMVeramontiT, et al.Hemispatial neglect: subtypes, neuroanatomy, and disability. Neurology2004; 62: 749–756.
6.
KerkhoffG. Spatial hemineglect in humans. Prog Neurobiol.2001; 63: 1–27.
7.
EspositoEShekhtmanGChenP. Prevalence of spatial neglect post-stroke: a systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med.2021; 64: 101459.
8.
ChenPChenCCHrehaK, et al.Kessler foundation neglect assessment process uniquely measures spatial neglect during activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2015; 96: 869–76.e1.
9.
Ten BrinkAFBiesbroekJMOortQ, et al.Peripersonal and extrapersonal visuospatial neglect in different frames of reference: a brain lesion-symptom mapping study. Behav Brain Res.2019; 356: 504–515.
10.
ButlerBCEskesGAVandorpeRA. Gradients of detection in neglect: comparison of peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Neuropsychologia2004; 42: 346–358.
11.
Van der StoepNVisser-MeilyJMKappelleLJ, et al.Exploring near and far regions of space: distance-specific visuospatial neglect after stroke. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol.2013; 35: 799–811.
12.
BaileyMJRiddochMJCromeP. Evaluation of a test battery for hemineglect in elderly stroke patients for use by therapists in clinical practice. NeuroRehabilitation2000; 14: 139–150.
CheckettsMMancusoMFordellH, et al.Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: findings from a multidisciplinary international survey. Neuropsychol Rehabil.2021; 31: 1495–1526.
15.
WilsonBCockburnJHalliganP. Development of a behavioral test of visuospatial neglect. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1987; 68: 98–102.
16.
EvaldLWilmsINordfangM. Assessment of spatial neglect in clinical practice: a nationwide survey. Neuropsychol Rehabil.2021; 31: 1374–1389.
17.
AzouviP. The ecological assessment of unilateral neglect. Ann Phys Rehabil Med.2017; 60: 186–190.
18.
ReynoldsCRMasonPJ. Measurement and statistical problems in neuropsychological assessment of children. In: Reynolds CR and Fletcher-Janzen E (eds) Handbook of clinical child neuropsychology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2009, pp.203–230.
19.
TerruzziSAlbiniFMassettiG, et al.The neuropsychological assessment of unilateral spatial neglect through computerized and virtual reality tools: a scoping review. Neuropsychol Rev.2024; 34: 363–401.
20.
ZimmermannPFimmB. Test for attentional performance (TAP). PsyTest, Herzogenrath1995; 1995: 76–77.
21.
KaneRLKayGG. Computerized assessment in neuropsychology: a review of tests and test batteries. Neuropsychol Rev.1992; 3: 1–117.
22.
ParseyCMSchmitter-EdgecombeM. Applications of technology in neuropsychological assessment. Clin Neuropsychol.2013; 27: 1328–1361.
23.
RengacharyJd'AvossaGSapirA, et al.Is the posner reaction time test more accurate than clinical tests in detecting left neglect in acute and chronic stroke?Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2009; 90: 2081–2088.
24.
Mozer. Frames of reference in unilateral neglect and visual perception: a computational perspective. Psychol Rev.2002; 109: 156.
25.
FarahMJBrunnJLWongAB, et al.Frames of reference for allocating attention to space: evidence from the neglect syndrome. Neuropsychologia1990; 28: 335–347.
26.
BehrmannMMoscovitchM. Object-centered neglect in patients with unilateral neglect: effects of left-right coordinates of objects. J Cogn Neurosci.1994; 6: 1–16.
27.
VallarGCalzolariE. Unilateral spatial neglect after posterior parietal damage. In: VallarG and CoslettHB (eds) Handbook of clinical neurology, Vol. 151. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier, 2018, pp.287–312.
KaiserAPVilladsenKWSamaniA, et al.Virtual reality and eye-tracking assessment, and treatment of unilateral spatial neglect: systematic review and future prospects. Front Psychol.2022; 13: 787382.
30.
LadavasE. Is the hemispatial deficit produced by right parietal lobe damage associated with retinal or gravitational coordinates?Brain1987; 110: 167–180.
31.
SteinJF. The representation of egocentric space in the posterior parietal cortex. Behav Brain Sci.1992; 15: 691–700.
32.
ChokronS. Right parietal lesions, unilateral spatial neglect, and the egocentric frame of reference. NeuroImage2003; 20: S75–S81.
33.
VogeleyKFinkGR. Neural correlates of the first-person-perspective. Trends Cogn Sci.2003; 7: 38–42.
34.
WangCChenXKnierimJJ. Egocentric and allocentric representations of space in the rodent brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol.2020; 60: 12–20.
35.
ZaehleTJordanKWüstenbergT, et al.The neural basis of the egocentric and allocentric spatial frame of reference. Brain Res.2007; 1137: 92–103.
36.
SouthgateV. Are infants altercentric? The other and the self in early social cognition. Psychol Rev.2020; 127: 505–523.
MainwaringSDTverskyBOhgishiM,et al.Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spat Cogn Comput.2003; 3: 3–42.
39.
TverskyBHardBM. Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking. Cognition2009; 110: 124–129.
40.
St. JacquesPLIriyeH. Putting things into perspective. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, 2022, pp.1–8.
41.
BisiachELuzzattiC. Unilateral neglect of representational space. Cortex1978; 14: 129–133.
42.
Della SalaSLogieRHBeschinN,et al.Preserved visuo-spatial transformations in representational neglect. Neuropsychologia2004; 42: 1358–1364.
43.
BecchioCDel GiudiceMDal MonteO, et al.In your place: neuropsychological evidence for altercentric remapping in embodied perspective taking. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci2013; 8: 165–170.
44.
SamsonDApperlyIABraithwaiteJJ, et al.Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. J Exp Psychol2010; 36: 1255.
45.
CavalloAAnsuiniCCapozziF, et al.When far becomes near: perspective taking induces social remapping of spatial relations. Psychol Sci.2017; 28: 69–79.
46.
FrithUFrithC. The social brain: allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philos Trans R Soc, B.2010; 365: 165–176.
47.
TosiAPickeringMJBraniganHP. Speakers’ use of agency and visual context in spatial descriptions. Cognition2020; 194: 104070.
48.
YangM-LYangC-CChiouW-B. When guilt leads to other orientation and shame leads to egocentric self-focus: effects of differential priming of negative affects on perspective taking. Soc Behav Pers: Int J2010; 38: 605–614.
CarloGAllenJBBuhmanDC. Facilitating and disinhibiting prosocial behaviors: the nonlinear interaction of trait perspective taking and trait personal distress on volunteering. Basic Appl Soc Psych.1999; 21: 189–197.
51.
WuSKeysarB. The effect of culture on perspective taking. Psychol Sci.2007; 18: 600–606.
52.
AllisonTPuceAMcCarthyG. Social perception from visual cues: role of the STS region. Trends Cogn Sci.2000; 4: 267–278.
53.
RivaGMancusoVCavedoniS,et al.Virtual reality in neurorehabilitation: a review of its effects on multiple cognitive domains. Expert Rev Med Devices.2020; 17: 1035–1061.
54.
WileyEKhattabSTangA. Examining the effect of virtual reality therapy on cognition post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Rehabil: Assistive Technol2022; 17: 50–60.
55.
KalawskyRS. Exploiting virtual reality techniques in education and training: Technological issues. http://www man ac uk/MVC/SIMA/vrtech/title html. 1996.
56.
AnthesCGarcía-HernándezRJWiedemannMKranzlmüllerD (eds). State of the art of virtual reality technology. In: 2016 IEEE aerospace conference, 2016: IEEE.
57.
RivaGGamberiniL. Virtual reality as telemedicine tool: technology, ergonomics and actual applications. Technol Health Care.2000; 8: 113–127.
58.
RyanWSCornickJBlascovichJ,et al.Virtual reality: whence, how and what for. In: RizzoASBouchardS (eds) Virtual reality for psychological and neurocognitive interventions. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2019, pp.15–46.
59.
Kardong-EdgrenSFarraSLAlinierG,et al.A call to unify definitions of virtual reality. Clin Simul Nurs2019; 31: 28–34.
60.
RizzoAKoenigST. Is clinical virtual reality ready for primetime?Neuropsychology2017; 31: 877–899.
61.
GarrettBTavernerTGromalaD, et al.Virtual reality clinical research: promises and challenges. JMIR Serious Games2018; 6: e10839.
62.
PourmandADavisSLeeD, et al.Emerging utility of virtual reality as a multidisciplinary tool in clinical medicine. Games Health J.2017; 6: 263–270.
63.
MassettiTDa SilvaTDCrocettaTB, et al.The clinical utility of virtual reality in neurorehabilitation: a systematic review. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis.2018; 10: 1179573518813541.
64.
TsirlinIDupierrixEChokronS, et al.Uses of virtual reality for diagnosis, rehabilitation and study of unilateral spatial neglect: review and analysis. Cyberpsychol Behav.2009; 12: 175–181.
65.
MaMZhengH. Virtual reality and serious games in healthcare. In: Advanced computational intelligence paradigms in healthcare 6: Virtual reality in psychotherapy, rehabilitation, and assessment. Berlin, DE: Springer, 2011, pp.169–192.
66.
FengZGonzálezVAAmorR, et al.Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuation training and research: a systematic literature review. Comput Educ.2018; 127: 252–266.
67.
BurkeJWMcNeillMCharlesDK, et al.Optimising engagement for stroke rehabilitation using serious games. Vis Comput.2009; 25: 1085–1099.
68.
AlankusGLazarAMayM, et al. (eds). Towards customizable games for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2010.
69.
TongTChignellM (eds). Developing a serious game for cognitive assessment: choosing settings and measuring performance. In: Proceedings of the second international symposium of Chinese CHI, 2014.
70.
MubinOAlnajjarFAl MahmudA, et al.Exploring serious games for stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review. Dis Rehabil: Assistive Technol2022; 17: 159–165.
71.
KnobelSEKaufmannBCGerberSM, et al.Immersive 3D virtual reality cancellation task for visual neglect assessment: a pilot study. Front Hum Neurosci.2020; 14: 180.
72.
HuygelierHSchraepenBLafosseC, et al.An immersive virtual reality game to train spatial attention orientation after stroke: a feasibility study. Appl Neuropsychol: Adult2022; 29: 915–935.
73.
AjanaKEverardGLejeuneT,et al.A feature and conjunction visual search immersive virtual reality serious game for measuring spatial and distractor inhibition attention using response time and action kinematics. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol.2023: 1–12.
74.
BowenAMcKennaKTallisRC. Reasons for variability in the reported rate of occurrence of unilateral spatial neglect after stroke. Stroke1999; 30: 1196–1202.
75.
GoliszKM. Dynamic assessment and multicontext treatment of unilateral neglect. Top Stroke Rehabil.1998; 5: 11–28.
BickertonWLSamsonDWilliamsonJ,et al.Separating forms of neglect using the apples test: validation and functional prediction in chronic and acute stroke. Neuropsychology2011; 25: 567–580.
79.
LaugwitzBHeldTSchreppM (eds). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Symposium of the Austrian HCI and usability engineering group, 2008: Springer.
80.
SchreppMHinderksAThomaschewskiJ (eds). Applying the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) in different evaluation scenarios. In: Design, User Experience, and Usability Theories, Methods, and Tools for Designing the User Experience: Third International Conference, DUXU 2014, Held as Part of HCI International 2014, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22–27, 2014, Proceedings, Part I 3: Springer.
81.
SchreppM. User experience questionnaire handbook. All you need to know to apply the UEQ successfully in your project. 2015.
82.
SchreppMThomaschewskiJHinderksA. Construction of a benchmark for the user experience questionnaire (UEQ). 2017.
83.
GunalpPMoossaianTHegartyM. Spatial perspective taking: effects of social, directional, and interactive cues. Mem Cognit.2019; 47: 1031–1043.
84.
SurteesAApperlyISamsonD. Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes. Cognition2013; 129: 426–438.
85.
FreundliebMSebanzNKovácsÁM. Out of your sight, out of my mind: knowledge about another person’s visual access modulates spontaneous visuospatial perspective-taking. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perf2017; 43: 1065.
86.
von Salm-HoogstraetenSBolziusKMüsselerJ. Seeing the world through the eyes of an avatar? Comparing perspective taking and referential coding. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perf2020; 46: 264.
87.
FurlanettoTCavalloAManeraV, et al.Through your eyes: incongruence of gaze and action increases spontaneous perspective taking. Front Hum Neurosci.2013; 7: 55.
88.
ColeGGMillettAC. The closing of the theory of mind: a critique of perspective-taking. Psychon Bull Rev.2019; 26: 1787–1802.
89.
ColeGGAtkinsonMLeAT,et al.Do humans spontaneously take the perspective of others?Acta Psychol (Amst).2016; 164: 165–168.
90.
SantiestebanICatmurCHopkinsSC, et al.Avatars and arrows: implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing?J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perf2014; 40: 929.
91.
DemeyereNSunSMilosevichE,et al.Post-stroke cognition with the Oxford cognitive screen vs montreal cognitive assessment: a multi-site randomized controlled study (OCS-CARE). AMRC Open Res2019; 1: 12.
92.
BasagniBDe TantiADamoraA, et al.The assessment of hemineglect syndrome with cancellation tasks: a comparison between the bells test and the apples test. Neurol Sci.2017; 38: 2171–2176.
93.
RordenCKarnathH-O. A simple measure of neglect severity. Neuropsychologia2010; 48: 2758–2763.
94.
PlummerPMorrisMEDunaiJ. Assessment of unilateral neglect. Phys Ther.2003; 83: 732–740.
95.
MontedoroVAlsamourMDehemS, et al.Robot diagnosis test for egocentric and allocentric hemineglect. Arch Clin Neuropsychol.2018; 34: 481–494.
96.
VallarGRusconiMBarozziS, et al.Improvement of left visuo-spatial hemineglect by left-sided transcutaneous electrical stimulation. Neuropsychologia1995; 33: 73–82.
97.
AzouviPSamuelCLouis-DreyfusA, et al.Sensitivity of clinical and behavioural tests of spatial neglect after right hemisphere stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry.2002; 73: 160–166.
98.
SmaniaNMartiniMGambinaG, et al.The spatial distribution of visual attention in hemineglect and extinction patients. Brain J Neurol.1998; 121: 1759–1770.
99.
OgdenJA. Anterior-posterior interhemispheric differences in the loci of lesions producing visual hemineglect. Brain Cogn.1985; 4: 59–75.
100.
AimolaLSchindlerISimoneAM,et al.Near and far space neglect: task sensitivity and anatomical substrates. Neuropsychologia2012; 50: 1115–1123.
101.
OngDSMWeibinMZVallabhajosyulaR. Serious games as rehabilitation tools in neurological conditions: a comprehensive review. Technol Health Care.2021; 29: 15–31.
102.
KrohnSTrompJQuinqueEM, et al.Multidimensional evaluation of virtual reality paradigms in clinical neuropsychology: application of the VR-check framework. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e16724.
103.
LumsdenJEdwardsEALawrenceNS, et al.Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: a systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Serious Games2016; 4: e11.
104.
BauerRMIversonGLCernichAN, et al.Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American academy of clinical neuropsychology and the national academy of neuropsychology. Clin Neuropsychol.2012; 26: 177–196.
105.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerB,et al.Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:14065823. 2014.
106.
BilderRMReiseSP. Neuropsychological tests of the future: how do we get there from here?Clin Neuropsychol2019; 33: 220–245.
107.
BrooksBLStraussEShermanE, et al.Developments in neuropsychological assessment: refining psychometric and clinical interpretive methods. Can Psychol2009; 50: 196.
