Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
Objective: Evaluate whether a task practiced in virtual environment could provide better performance than the same task in real environment and if performing a task in virtual environment could enable transfer to the same task in real environment and vice versa. Method: the investigators evaluated 65 older adults of both genders, aged 60-82 years. The investigators applied a timing coincident task to measure the perceptual-motor ability to perform a motor response. The participants were divided into two groups: a) started in a real interface and b) started in a virtual interface.
Full description
Sixty-five older adults of both sexes (12 males and 53 females) aged 60-82 years (definition used by World Health Organization) were included for participation in the study. Other inclusion criteria included healthy cognitive and motor conditions to understand and perform the required activity, which consisted of scoring more than 24 points on a Mini Mental State Examination administered before testing.
Material and apparatus
The investigators applied the timing coincident task to measure the perceptual-motor ability to perform a motor response in sync with the arrival of an external object at a certain point. This instrument has been widely investigated, especially in the motor learning area. To evaluate the motor learning of the participants using a timing coincident task, two distinct interfaces were applied as follows:
Procedure and design The participants were divided into two groups: one group started in RI (RI-group), and the other started in VI (VI-group). Each participant used the dominant hand to perform the tasks (all right-handed). The task was performed in 20 trials for acquisition, 5 trials for retention and 5 trials for transfer. Acquisition and retention were performed at the same velocity, and transfer with an increase of velocity. Both groups performed the tasks in the two interfaces.
The researches provided verbal explanation about the use of instruments before the participants started the tasks. The tasks according to the interfaces are described below.
Virtual interface: Participants were seated on a chair in front of a computer (MS Windows 64bits, Intel® Core™ i7-4810MQ CPU @ 2.80GHz) and Kinect sensor V1.0 to facilitate and enable the task. The image of participant was shown at the top righ of the monitor, and their hand movement in the main screen. The movement to reach the bubble was obtained by Kinect sensor. The participant had to move his/her hand to pass over the target bubble. During acquisition and retention trials, the bubbles simulated a dropped light movement with the turning on and off of the lights in an interval of 500ms (level 4) between position changes, while during transfer light movement was increased with 250ms (level 5) between positions.
Real interface: Participants were standing in front of the Bassin Anticipatory Timer positioned vertically on a table. The standing position was used in the real task to facilitate the participant to be able to see the task with comfort. Participant was orientated that they should press the button when the target light was turned on (synchronously with the target light). The dropped light movement, with the turning on and off of the LEDs occurred at an interval of 100ms (l MPH) between position changes to acquisition and retention phases, and at an interval of 9ms (11MPH) to transfer.
Due to the difference in number of LEDs (RI) and bubbles (VI) between the tasks, to equalize the protocol, the time between the start and end of the task was the same for all phases of the study, i.e., 5 seconds for acquisition and retention and 2.5 seconds for transfer.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
65 participants in 4 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal