Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2025
Author Spotlight: Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients With a Digital Occupational Training System
Published on: December 29, 2023
Extended reality to assess post-stroke manual dexterity: contrasts between the classic box and block test, immersive
Gauthier Everard1,2,3, Quentin Burton3, Vincent Van de Sype4
1Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et intégration sociale, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Background:
Recent technological advancements present promising opportunities to enhance the frequency and objectivity of functional assessments, aligning with recent stroke rehabilitation guidelines. Within this framework, we designed and adapted different manual dexterity tests in extended reality (XR), using immersive virtual reality (VR) with controllers (BBT-VR-C), immersive VR with hand-tracking (BBT-VR-HT), and mixed-reality (MD-MR).
Objective:
This study primarily aimed to assess and compare the validity of the BBT-VR-C, BBT-VR-HT and MD-MR to assess post-stroke manual dexterity. Secondary objectives were to evaluate reliability, usability and to define arm kinematics measures.
Methods:
A sample of 21 healthy control participants (HCP) and 21 stroke individuals with hemiparesis (IHP) completed three trials of the traditional BBT, the BBT-VR-C, BBT-VR-HT and MD-MR. Content validity of the different tests were evaluated by asking five healthcare professionals to rate the difficulty of performing each test in comparison to the traditional BBT. Convergent validity was evaluated through correlations between the scores of the traditional BBT and the XR tests. Test-retest reliability was assessed through correlations between the second and third trial and usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Lastly, upper limb movement smoothness (SPARC) was compared between IHP and HCP for both BBT-VR test versions.
Results:
For content validity, healthcare professionals rated the BBT-VR-HT (0[0-1]) and BBT-MR (0[0-1]) as equally difficult to the traditional BBT, whereas they rated BBT-VR-C as more difficult than the traditional BBT (1[0-2]). For IHP convergent validity, the Pearson tests demonstrated larger correlations between the scores of BBT and BBT-VR-HT (r = 0.94;p < 0.001), and BBT and MD-MR (r = 0.95;p < 0.001) than BBT and BBT-VR-C (r = 0.65;p = 0.001). BBT-VR-HT and MD-MR usability were both rated as excellent, with median SUS scores of 83[57.5-91.3] and 83[53.8-92.5] respectively. Excellent reliability was found for the BBT-VR-C (ICC = 0.96;p < 0.001), BBT-VR-HT (ICC = 0.96;p < 0.001) and BBT-MR (ICC = 0.99;p < 0.001). The usability of the BBT-VR-C was rated as good with a median SUS of 70[43.8-83.8]. Upper limb movements of HCP were significantly smoother than for IHP when completing either the BBT-VR-C (t = 2.05;p = 0.043) and the BBT-VR-HT (t = 5.21;p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
The different XR manual tests are valid, short-term reliable and usable tools to assess post-stroke manual dexterity.
Trial Registration:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04694833 ; Unique identifier: NCT04694833, Date of registration: 11/24/2020.
