Skip to main content

Table 3 Study design: population, conditions, and blinding approach

From: Virtual reality and non-invasive brain stimulation for rehabilitation applications: a systematic review

Article

Study Population

Experimental Conditions

[25]

Patients with impaired unilateral UL motor function due to stroke (n = 59)

Participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups:

Occupational therapy + tDCS (n = 19)

(A) VR instead of occupational therapy (n = 20)

(B) VR therapy + tDCS (n = 20)

[30]

Patients with stroke in the subacute stage (n = 15), and healthy participants (n = 15)

(C) All participants underwent 4 conditions in random order, in different consecutive days:

(A) Active wrist exercise

(B) VR wrist exercise

(C) VR wrist exercise + tDCS

(D) tDCS without wrist exercise

[31]

Patients with impaired unilateral UL motor function due to unilateral stroke (n = 20)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 10)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 10)

[29]

Patients with hemiplegia after stroke (n = 108)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + TMS (n = 55)

(B) VR + sham TMS (n = 53)

[28]

Patients with impaired motor function due to stroke (n = 3)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + TMS (n = 2)

(B) VR + sham TMS (n = 1)

[33]

Patient with severe left hemiparesis due to stroke (n = 1)

Participant underwent A-B-A conditions:

(A) Motor rehabilitation (no VR nor tDCS) (n = 1)

(B) Motor rehabilitation + VR + tDCS (n = 1)

[32]

Patients with ischemic stroke (n = 40)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 20)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 20)

[34]

Patients with spider phobia (n = 41), and healthy participants (n = 42)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + TMS (n = 40)

(B) VR + sham TMS (n = 43)

[35]

Patients with spider phobia (n = 41), and healthy participants (n = 42)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + TMS (n = 40)

(C) VR + sham TMS (n = 43)

[36]

Patients with PTSD (n = 12)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 6)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 6)

[37]

Children patients with cerebral palsy (n = 12)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 6)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 6)

[26]

Children patients with cerebral palsy (n = 12)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 6)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 6)

[38]

Children patients with cerebral palsy (n = 20)

Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 10)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 10)

[39]

Patients with SCI and NP (n = 39)

Participants were randomly assigned to 4 groups:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 10)

(B) tDCS group (n = 10)

(C) VR group (n = 9)

(D) Placebo group (n = 10)

[40]

Patients with SCI and NP (n = 18), patients with SCI without NP (n = 20), and healthy participants (n = 14)

Only SCI patients with NP underwent:

VR + tDCS therapy (n = 18)

[41]

Patient with primary-progressive MS (n = 1)

Participant underwent A-B conditions:

(A) VR + tDCS (n = 1)

(B) VR + sham tDCS (n = 1)

  1. MS multiple sclerosis, NP neuropathic pain, UL upper limb, SCI spinal cord injury