Page 44 - BH-2-2

Brain & Heart VR for TBI memory and eye fixation recovery

improvement, staying the same, or declining in their ability 3.2. Feasibility
to remember something they were told to remember 5 min 3.2.1. Equipment
prior. For the PRMQ, which involves an ordinal variable,
the one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess intervention The equipment setup typically requires approximately
and delayed-intervention group differences in means on 10 min due to the various components that need to be
the PRMQ. attached. Ideally, equipment could be set up and left in
The screen recordings of eye-tracking sessions were place so that setup and takedown are not necessary on a
viewed by researchers to assess potential improvements regular basis. However, the ability to move equipment
allows for mobility and facilitates meeting patients where
in the participants’ eye-tracking ability to keep the ball they are, whether at home or bedside in a hospital setting.
green. Researchers calculated the proportion of time
that the ball was green during the session by watching 3.2.2. Space
the screen recordings of each session and using a time Due to the physical movement and use of a sensor on
watch to calculate the total time that the ball was green. a tripod to detect movement in these VR scenarios, a
This number was divided by the total time of the scenario, minimum of a four-foot diameter around the participant
6 min, providing a proportion of time that the ball was is needed to set up equipment, including a chair for the
green. The first session was used as the baseline measure of participants to sit in. This study was conducted in two
eye tracking, and then a middle session and the last session locations. One location was a much smaller space, and
were used for data analysis to compare participants’ ability the VR technician and participant felt cramped. The
to focus their eyes over time. “throwing” movement performed by participants during
3. VR pilot results the memory scenario creates a safety challenge for both
the participants and the VR technician. They need space to
3.1. Acceptability throw the object, and the VR technician should be aware of

All participants expressed enjoyment of both VR scenarios, their throwing motion.
with the majority describing them as peaceful experiences. 3.2.3. Participant support
One participant said that it was “exactly what I needed”
after a stressful week. Another participant who used a While the long-term goal is for participants to be able
wheelchair expressed that she enjoyed seeing the animals to complete VR in the comfort of their homes without
and told VR technicians that she was “going on a hike” support, this study found that a lot of support was needed
before putting on the headset to participate each week. by the VR technician. The VR technicians provided a lot
of technical support, including setup and takedown of
Potential challenges included sleep, mobility, and eye equipment, software setup, and ensuring the headset was
impairments. Although anticipated by mentions of red- secure on each participant’s head. Second, VR technicians
light sensitivity in the focus group data, no participants prompted participants to focus on the ball in the eye-
reported motion sickness or sensitivity to red light as they tracking scenario, and without giving them an answer as
used the scenarios. One participant reported that after to what to do next, they gave them a gentle reminder that
completing the scenarios twice, she noticed that she did a hiker was coming toward them in the memory scenario.
not sleep as well the nights following her participation. As VR technology and software simplify and ease of use
A few participants who had neck and hand mobility improves, a VR technician may not be needed.
struggled more than other participants to complete the
memory hiking scenario, which required the neck to turn 3.2.4. Software
slightly from side to side to see hikers and the objects they Each piece of software, including the laptop and VR
were tasked with passing to the hikers. VR technicians equipment, needed regular updates, or the VR scenario
learned about each participant’s mobility and were able to would begin glitching. Software updates were scheduled
prompt participants to move within their ability to engage to be conducted biweekly to avoid glitching in the VR
successfully in the scenario. The beach scenario did not scenarios.
pose any mobility challenges to these participants, as the
scenario does not require participants to look around at 3.3. Outcomes
all; they merely look forward. One participant who had a On the objective memory test, participants in the VR
vision impairment and could not use his peripheral vision intervention group (66%) improved their memory
in real life successfully completed both scenarios without more often than the memory card delayed-intervention
much challenge at all. group (0%) after 6 weeks and about 12 sessions on the

Volume 2 Issue 2 (2024) 7 doi: 10.36922/bh.2685