. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2013 Mar;1(1):9–20. doi: 10.1007/s40141-013-0005-2

Table 3.

Gait studies [22, 23]

Citation	Sample	Hardware	Simulation	Comparison	Intervention	Pre-Post	Pre-Retention
Yang [23]	VR	Input	Task;	20 min walking on TM with VR vs. 20 min walking on TM looking out window	Dose:	Sit to Stand	Not tested
	N = 7 E	TM with speed detector	Park walk, path with turns, home activities		4 weeks	Center of Pressure^§
	Age 56.3 (10)				3 days	VR* > Control
	Mos. post > 6				40 min	Symmetry Index^§
	Ind. Amb.					VR* > Control^*
	Control N = 7	Output	Presentation:	Plus (both groups)	Progression : N/A	Gait
	Age 65.7 (6)	Visual: projector	2D semi immersive Avatar	40 min PT (parallel bars, biking, hand function)		Paretic Limb Stance Time^§
	Mos. post > 6	Haptics: N/A				VR* > Control
	Ind. Amb.					Paretic Limb Stance COP^§
						VR* > Control
						Quiet Stance
						Center of Pressure-NS
						Symmetry Index–NS
Mirelman [24•] Gait and Posture	VR + Robot	Input	Task:	LE training using robotic interface in VR vs. LE training using robotic interface only	Dose:	Gait Speed (m/s)^§	Gait Speed (m/s)^§
	N = 8	Robotic interface	air and sea scape navigation through targets		4 weeks	VR + Robot: 0.65–0.80^*	VR + Robot: 0.65–0.68^*
	Age 61 (10)				3 days	Robot only: 0.67–68 m/s	Control 0.67–0.68
	Mos. post				40 min
	LEFMA 24(3)
	Robot only N = 8	Output	Presentation: 2d semi immersive Avatar		Progression: therapist-controlled difficulty	Ankle Power (NM/kg)^§	Ankle Power (NM/kg)^§
	Age 61 (8)	Visual: desktop				VR + Robot: 0.74–0.90^*	VR + Robot: 0.74–0.94^*
	Mos. post	Haptics: robotic interface				Robot only: 0.5–0.52	Robot only: 0.5–0.54
	LEFMA 22(4)

mos months, Ind Amb independent ambulation, LEFMA lower extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment, TM treadmill, min minutes, s second

^§

Statistically significant between group comparison (p < .05),

Statistically significant change (p < .05)