Comparison of grasping movements made by healthy subjects in a 3-dimensional immersive virtual versus physical...

Virtual reality (VR) technology is being used with increasing frequency as a training medium for motor rehabilitation. However, before addressing training effectiveness in virtual environments (VEs), it is necessary to identify if movements made in such environments are kinematically similar to those made in physical environments (PEs) and the effect of provision of haptic feedback on these movement patterns. These questions are important since reach-to-grasp movements may be inaccurate when visual or haptic feedback is altered or absent. Our goal was to compare kinematics of reaching and grasping movements to three objects performed in an immersive three-dimensional (3D) VE with haptic feedback (cyberglove/grasp system) viewed through a head-mounted display to those made in an equivalent physical environment (PE). We also compared movements in PE made with and without wearing the cyberglove/grasp haptic feedback system. Ten healthy subjects (8 women, 62.1±8.8years) reached and grasped objects requiring 3 different grasp types (can, diameter 65.6mm, cylindrical grasp; screwdriver, diameter 31.6mm, power grasp; pen, diameter 7.5mm, precision grasp) in PE and visually similar virtual objects in VE. Temporal and spatial arm and trunk kinematics were analyzed. Movements were slower and grip apertures were wider when wearing the glove in both the PE and the VE compared to movements made in the PE without the glove. When wearing the glove, subjects used similar reaching trajectories in both environments, preserved the coordination between reaching and grasping and scaled grip aperture to object size for the larger object (cylindrical grasp). However, in VE compared to PE, movements were slower and had longer deceleration times, elbow extension was greater when reaching to the smallest object and apertures were wider for the power and precision grip tasks. Overall, the differences in spatial and temporal kinematics of movements between environments were greater than those due only to wearing the cyberglove/grasp system. Differences in movement kinematics due to the viewing environment were likely due to a lack of prior experience with the virtual environment, an uncertainty of object location and the restricted field-of-view when wearing the head-mounted display. The results can be used to inform the design and disposition of objects within 3D VEs for the study of the control of prehension and for upper limb rehabilitation.