Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 23, 2014

Patient engagement and clinical feasibility of Augmented Reflection Technology for stroke rehabilitation

  • Simon Hoermann EMAIL logo , Leigh Hale , Stanley J. Winser and Holger Regenbrecht


This paper evaluates the patient engagement and clinical feasibility of an Augmented Reflection Technology (ART) system for use in physical rehabilitation of the upper limb following stroke. In particular, TheraMem, an extension of the ART system, was assessed on its potential to engage patients in meaningful therapeutic exercise. Six patients participated in a total of 24 sessions of upper limb training using the system. Tailored support for patients performing the exercises was provided based on the severity and level of their impairment. Various configurations of the system were evaluated and adjusted to best match the therapeutic requirements and the patient’s preferences. All patients were able to successfully participate and complete the TheraMem intervention at a high level of engagement and motivation over the course of the therapy sessions.

Corresponding author: Simon Hoermann, PhD, Department of Information Science, University of Otago, 60 Clyde Street, Dunedin, New Zealand, E-mail:


The authors thank the six participants for their effort and time to take part in this study. We wish to thank Dr. Marina Moss and Bronwyn Horner for their contribution in the administrative part of this clinical research.


1. Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;9:CD008349.10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Regenbrecht H, Franz EA, McGregor G, Dixon B, Hoermann S. Beyond the looking glass: fooling the brain with the augmented mirror box. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 2011;20: 559–76.10.1162/PRES_a_00082Search in Google Scholar

3. Hoermann S, Franz EA, Regenbrecht H. Referred sensations elicited by video-mediated mirroring of hands. PLoS One 2012;7:e50942.10.1371/journal.pone.0050942Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Regenbrecht H, Hoermann S, McGregor G, Dixon B, Franz E, Ott C, et al. Visual manipulations for motor rehabilitation. Comput Graphics 2012;36:819–34.10.1016/j.cag.2012.04.012Search in Google Scholar

5. Regenbrecht H, McGregor G, Ott C, Hoermann S, Schubert T, Hale L, et al. Out of reach? – A novel AR interface approach for motor rehabilitation. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. Basel, Switzerland, 2011:219–28.10.1109/ISMAR.2011.6092389Search in Google Scholar

6. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 1975;7:13–31.Search in Google Scholar

7. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985;65:175–80.10.1093/ptj/65.2.175Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth Scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 1987;67: 206–7.10.1093/ptj/67.2.206Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G. Adult norms For The Nine Hole Peg Test of Finger Dexterity. OTJR 1985;5:24–38.10.1177/153944928500500102Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2013-5-10
Accepted: 2013-6-27
Published Online: 2014-7-23
Published in Print: 2014-9-1

©2014 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 10.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button