Home › Research › Prevention trials
Acceptance and Usability of Immersive Virtual Reality in Older Adults with Objective and Subjective Cognitive Decline
Arlati S, Di Santo SG, Franchini F, Mondellini M, Filiputti B, Luchi M, Ratto F, Ferrigno G et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2021-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Virtual reality (VR) has recently emerged as a promising means for the administration of cognitive training of seniors at risk of dementia. Immersive VR could result in increased engagement and performances; however, its acceptance in older adults with cognitive deficits still has to be assessed. Objective To assess acceptance and usability of an immersive VR environment requiring real walking and active participants' interaction. Methods 58 seniors with mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 24) or subjective cognitive decline (SCD, n = 31) performed a shopping task in a virtual supermarket displayed through a head-mounted display. Subjective and objective outcomes were evaluated. Results Immersive VR was well-accepted by all but one participant (TAM3 positive subscales > 5.33), irrespective of the extent of cognitive decline. Participants enjoyed the experience (spatial presence 3.51±0.50, engagement 3.85±0.68, naturalness 3.85±0.82) and reported negligible side-effects (SSQ: 3.74; q1-q3:0-16.83). The environment was considered extremely realistic, such as to induce potentially harmful behaviors: one participant fell while trying to lean on a virtual shelf. Older participants needed more time to conclude trials. Participants with MCI committed more errors in grocery items' selection and experienced less "perceived control" over the environment. Conclusion Immersive VR was acceptable and enjoyable for older adults in both groups. Cognitive deficits could induce risky behaviors, and cause issues in the interactions with virtual items. Further studies are needed to confirm acceptance of immersive VR in individuals at risk of dementia, and to extend the results to people with more severe symptoms.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Arlati, S., Di Santo, S. G., Franchini, F., Mondellini, M., Filiputti, B., Luchi, M., et al. (2021). Acceptance and Usability of Immersive Virtual Reality in Older Adults with Objective and Subjective Cognitive Decline. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-201431
Vancouver
Arlati S, Di Santo SG, Franchini F, Mondellini M, Filiputti B, Luchi M, et al. Acceptance and Usability of Immersive Virtual Reality in Older Adults with Objective and Subjective Cognitive Decline. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021. doi:10.3233/jad-201431. PMID: 33646164.
BibTeX
@article{arlati2021-33646164,
author = {Arlati, S. and Di Santo, S. G. and Franchini, F. and Mondellini, M. and Filiputti, B. and Luchi, M. and Ratto, F. and Ferrigno, G. and others},
title = {{Acceptance and Usability of Immersive Virtual Reality in Older Adults with Objective and Subjective Cognitive Decline}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/jad-201431},
pmid = {33646164},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-201431}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Immersive VR could result in increased engagement and performances; however, its acceptance in older adults with cognitive deficits still has to be assessed.
- Results Immersive VR was well-accepted by all but one participant (TAM3 positive subscales > 5.33), irrespective of the extent of cognitive decline.
- Older participants needed more time to conclude trials.
- Further studies are needed to confirm acceptance of immersive VR in individuals at risk of dementia, and to extend the results to people with more severe symptoms.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants24
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 24 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33646164) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.