Table 1.

Articles Included in the Scoping Review on Head-Mounted Displays for Virtual Reality in Adult Physical Rehabilitation, by Population

Author/Year	Level of Evidence/Study Design	Population	Participants	Provider Type	Type of HMD–VR	Focus of Assessment or Intervention
Stroke
Huang et al. (2018)	Level III Quasi-experimental	Stroke	N = 8	Physiotherapist	Oculus Rift DK2 (Oculus VR, Menlo Park, CA) with Amadeo 5 degrees of freedom robotic device; Tyromotion, Graz, Austria)	Fine motor exercises
Jannink et al. (2009)	Level III Nonrandomized controlled trial	Stroke, visuospatial neglect	N = 18 (n = 6 healthy, n = 6 acute stroke, n = 6 chronic stroke)	Unspecified	HMD Proview XL (Kaiser Electronics, Cedar Rapids, IA)	Visual searching task for assessment of visual neglect
Kang et al. (2012)	Level II RCT	Stroke	N = 30 (n = 10 optic flow group, n = 10 healthy control group, n = 10 treadmill group)	Physical therapist	MSP-209 (Kowon Technology, Seoul, South Korea)	Gait and balance training
Lupu et al. (2018)	Level III Quasi-experimental	Stroke	N = 7	Unspecified	Oculus Rift (Oculus VR, Menlo Park, CA) with TRAVEE BCI–FES subsystem	Fine motor exercises
Peskine et al. (2011)	Level III Nonrandomized controlled trial	Stroke, visuospatial neglect	N = 18 (n = 9 stroke patients, n = 9 healthy control)	Unspecified	Unspecified	Navigation of virtual town for assessment of visual neglect
Subramanian et al. (2007)	Level II Prospective RCT	Stroke	N = 32 stroke patients	Unspecified	Kaiser XL 50, resolution 1024 × 768, frequency 60 Hz (Mindflux, Roseville, New South Wales, Australia) with CAREN VR simulation system (CAREN, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)	Upper extremity training exercises and reaching task
Subramanian & Levin (2011)	Level III Nonrandomized controlled trial	Stroke	N = 30 (n = 20 stroke, n = 10 healthy)	Unspecified	IREX Integrated Rehabilitation & Exercise System (GestureTek, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)	Repetitive task-based training and reaching task
Spinal Cord Injury
Carlozzi et al. (2013)	Level II Randomized comparative trial	SCI	N = 52 (n = 26 HMD, n = 26 screen display)	Unspecified	eMagin Z800 3D visor and hand controls for acceleration and deceleration (eMagin, Hopewell Junction, NY) with adaptive equipment for steering (e.g., spinner knob, tri-pin)	HMD–VR-based driving simulator
Nunnerley et al. (2017)	Level VI Qualitative	SCI	N = 12 (n = 7 SCI, n = 5 clinicians)	Unspecified	Oculus Rift (Oculus VR, Menlo Park, CA) with Dynamic Controls wheelchair joystick (Dynamic Controls, Christchurch, New Zealand)	Feasibility of HMD–VR-based wheelchair training
Vestibular Impairment and Balance
Lubetzky et al. (2018)	Level IV Case series	Healthy adults	N = 21	Unspecified	Oculus Rift DK2 (Oculus VR, Menlo Park, CA) with Unity Version 5.2.1f (Unity Technologies, San Francisco, CA)	Assessment of balance and postural control
Micarelli et al. (2017)	Level II RCT	Unilateral vestibular hypofunction	N = 47 (n = 23 HMD–VR + conventional training, n = 24 conventional training only)	Unspecified	Revelation 3D headset (Chinavasion, Hong Kong) with Windows phone (Microsoft, Redmond, WA)	HMD–VR-based vestibular exercise program
Rausch et al. (2018)	Level IV Cross-sectional design	Healthy adults	N = 28	Athletic trainer	Google Cardboard V2 (Google, Mountain View, CA) with smartphone	Assessment of postural control
Saldana et al. (2017)	Level III Pilot study	Older adults at risk for falls	N = 13 (n = 5 high fall risk, n = 8 low fall risk)	Unspecified	Oculus Rift DK2 (Oculus VR, Menlo Park, CA) with force plate	Assessment of balance
Tossavainen et al. (2001)	Level IV Case series	Healthy adults	N = 3	Unspecified	Virtual Research VR8 and head orientation tracker (Virtual Research Systems, Aptos, CA)	Assessment of balance
Viziano et al. (2018)	Level II RCT follow-up	Unilateral vestibular hypofunction	N = 47 (n = 23 HMD–VR + conventional training, n = 24 conventional training only)	Unspecified	Revelation 3D headset (Chinavasion, Hong Kong) with Windows phone (Microsoft, Redmond, WA)	HMD–VR-based vestibular exercise program
Zalewski-Zaragoza & Viirre (2003)	Level IV Case series	Vertigo	N = 15 with vertigo	Medical doctor	Virtual IO HMD (Virtual IO Solutions, Alpharetta, GA) with Pentium-driven personal computer	Assessment of vertigo symptoms
Cervical Range of Motion
Sarig Bahat et al. (2015)	Level III Repeated measures	Healthy adults	N = 46	Unspecified	i-glasses HRV Pro (I-o Display Systems, Menlo Park, CA), Virtual Realities HMD (Virtual Realities, Wintersville, OH), and Fastrak electromagnetic tracking system (Polhemus, Colchester, VT)	Assessment of CROM
Sarig-Bahat et al. (2009)	Level III Repeated measures	Healthy adults	N = 30	Unspecified	i-glasses HRV Pro (I-o Display Systems, Menlo Park, CA), Virtual Realities HMD (Virtual Realities, Wintersville, OH), and Fastrak electromagnetic tracking system (Polhemus, Colchester, VT)	Assessment of CROM
Sarig-Bahat et al. (2010)	Level III Nonrandomized comparative trial	Chronic neck pain	N = 67 (n = 25 symptomatic adults, n = 42 asymptomatic adults)	Unspecified	i-glasses HRV Pro (I-o Display Systems, Menlo Park, CA), Virtual Realities HMD (Virtual Realities, Wintersville, OH), and Fastrak electromagnetic tracking system (Polhemus, Colchester, VT)	Assessment of CROM
Parkinson’s Disease
Arias et al. (2012)	Level III Nonrandomized controlled trial	PD	N = 36 (n = 12 PD, n = 12 healthy younger adults, 12 older adults)	Unspecified	Vuzix iWear VR920 glasses (Vuzix, Rochester, NY)	Assessment of fine motor movements
Congenital Limb Deficiency
Kurzynski et al. (2017)	Level IV Single case–control	Congenital limb difference	N = 2 (n = 1 congenital limb difference, n = 1 healthy control)	Unspecified; experienced instructor in a lab	Visual Studio development environment and XNA framework (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) with Sony HMZ-T1 headset (Sony, Tokyo, Japan)	HMD–VR-based motor imagery training

Note. BCI = brain–computer interface; CROM = cervical range of motion; FES = functional electrical stimulation; HMD = head-mounted display; PD = Parkinson’s disease; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SCI = spinal cord injury; VR = virtual reality.