StrokeNCT05672628
The Feasibility, Usability, and Acceptability of Using the Oculus™ Virtual Reality Gaming Technology in Stroke Survivors for Upper Extremity and Cognitive Rehabilitation
A study testing Oculus VR in people with Stroke, run by The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to test the (a) feasibility, (b) usability, and (c) acceptability of using the Oculus Virtual Reality (VR) for chronic stroke survivors who have mild-moderate cognitive and unilateral arm impairment to administer upper extremity and cognitive rehabilitation, to calculate the change in… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke
- What is being tested?
- Oculus VR
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 32 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 5 Mar 2023to 31 Jul 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke diagnosis within 6 months to 2 years of enrollment
- can read, write, comprehend, speak English
- willing and able to provide informed consent
- Caregivers must live in the home with the stroke survivor
Who cannot join
- do not have score ranges that indicate mild to moderate severity on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA )(15-25) or other appropriate cognitive screening test selected by the speech language pathologist
- has aphasia, hemiopsia, and other neurological deficits that prevents the participant from being examined using MoCA or a modified MoCA, Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FM) (20-50)
- unstable while standing unassisted
- have a history of motion sickness/ vertigo/ dizziness/seizures, claustrophobia, blind/deaf, and cannot hold the controller in their affected arm.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Houston, Texas, 77030
About this study
The purpose of this study is to test the (a) feasibility, (b) usability, and (c) acceptability of using the Oculus Virtual Reality (VR) for chronic stroke survivors who have mild-moderate cognitive and unilateral arm impairment to administer upper extremity and cognitive rehabilitation, to calculate the change in upper extremity and cognition scores on standardized measurements per standard of care and to qualitatively explore the impact of engaging caregivers in supporting the stroke survivor's rehabilitation and the impact of this engagement on the stroke survivor and caregiver dyad using semi-structured interviews.
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Being tested
- Oculus VR
- Keywords
- rehabilitation, upper limb, stroke survivor
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Oculus VRDevice
During the first visit, the Oculus headset will be placed on the stroke survivor's head and demonstrate how to use the headset. participant will be then allowed to play a game using the hand controllers for up to 30 minutes. Finally, a copy of exercises for their home rehabilitation program will be provided. During the next rehabilitation visits, a trained research assistant will guide the stroke survivor with using the gaming headset. The session will be stopped every 20 minutes to make sure that the stroke survivor is feeling well and to give them a break. The stroke survivor may stop the session at any time. This session will last for an hour.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Oculus VR | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Oculus VR |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Feasibility as Assessed by the Number of Sessions Attended
The minimum number of sessions expected for a user are 2 per week (8 sessions)
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Feasibility as Assessed by the Time Spent Using the Oculus VR
the minimum time spent playing Job Simulator is 1 hour (60 minutes) per week. (240 minutes through the end of the study)
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Usability as Assessed by the Score on the System Usability Scale (SUS)
The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to assess the usability of the technology. Total score ranges from 10 to 50, with a higher score indicating greater usability.
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Usability as Assessed by the Score on the Presence Questionnaire (PQ)
The Presence Questionnaire (PQ), total score ranges from 29 to 87, with a higher score indicating greater usability.
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Cognition as Assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) range from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline
Cognition as Assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) range from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.
Measured: end of intervention (about 4 weeks from baseline)
Limb Function as Assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Total score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), ranging from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Measured: Baseline
Limb Function as Assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Total score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), ranging from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Arm Impairment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer - Upper Extremity Assessment
Total score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), ranges from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better arm function.
Measured: Baseline
Arm Impairment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer - Upper Extremity Assessment
Total score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), ranges from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better arm function.
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Burden of Caregivers in Supporting the Stroke Survivor as Assessed by the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - Short Version
Total score on the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - short version, ranges from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating more burden
Measured: Baseline
Burden of Caregivers in Supporting the Stroke Survivor as Assessed by the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - Short Version
Total score on the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - short version, ranges from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating more burden
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Baseline
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Measured: Session 12 (week 4 day 3)
Secondary outcomes (38)
Impact of the Rehabilitation on the Participant as Assessed by the Number of Themes Derived From the Qualitative Interview
In-person, in-depth interviews will be conducted following completion of a virtual reality (VR) intervention using the Oculus Quest 2 headset for post-stroke rehabilitation. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim and a qualitative analytic process will be used to identify common themes. A codebook will be developed based on analysis of the transcripts. This outcome reflects the number of themes derived from the interviews.
Measured: Baseline
Impact of the Rehabilitation on the Caregiver as Assessed by Number of Themes Derived From the Qualitative Interview
In-person, in-depth interviews will be conducted following completion of a virtual reality (VR) intervention using the Oculus Quest 2 headset for post-stroke rehabilitation. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim and a qualitative analytic process will be used to identify common themes. A codebook will be developed based on analysis of the transcripts. This outcome reflects the number of themes derived from the interviews.
Measured: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Measured: Session 12 (week 4 day3 )
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Measured: Session 12 (week 4 day3 )
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 5 (week 2 day2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Measured: Session 12 (week 4 day 3)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Jan 2023
- Study start5 Mar 2023
- Primary completion17 Jul 2024
- Study completion31 Jul 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 32 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- IoT and Aging in Place Joint Seed Grant
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Seema S Aggarwal, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
- Investigators
- Seema S Aggarwal, PhD, APRN, AGNP-C, Principal investigator, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05672628
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HSC-SN-22-0838
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 20 Dec 2022
- Last updated
- 17 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Feasibility, Usability, and Acceptability of Using the Oculus™ Virtual Reality Gaming Technology in Stroke Survivors for Upper Extremity and Cognitive Rehabilitation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05672628
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HSC-SN-22-0838
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Keywords
- rehabilitation, upper limb, stroke survivor
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 32 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Texas Health Science Center, HoustonUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- IoT and Aging in Place Joint Seed Grant
- Study start
- 5 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jul 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 17 Aug 2025
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to test the (a) feasibility, (b) usability, and (c) acceptability of using the Oculus Virtual Reality (VR) for chronic stroke survivors who have mild-moderate cognitive and unilateral arm impairment to administer upper extremity and cognitive rehabilitation, to calculate the change in upper extremity and cognition scores on standardized measurements per standard of care and to qualitatively explore the impact of engaging caregivers in supporting the stroke survivor's rehabilitation and the impact of this engagement on the stroke survivor and caregiver dyad using semi-structured interviews.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Oculus VR | Experimental | Device: Oculus VR |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke diagnosis within 6 months to 2 years of enrollment
- can read, write, comprehend, speak English
- willing and able to provide informed consent
- Caregivers must live in the home with the stroke survivor
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- do not have score ranges that indicate mild to moderate severity on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA )(15-25) or other appropriate cognitive screening test selected by the speech language pathologist
- has aphasia, hemiopsia, and other neurological deficits that prevents the participant from being examined using MoCA or a modified MoCA, Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FM) (20-50)
- unstable while standing unassisted
- have a history of motion sickness/ vertigo/ dizziness/seizures, claustrophobia, blind/deaf, and cannot hold the controller in their affected arm.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Oculus VRDuring the first visit, the Oculus headset will be placed on the stroke survivor's head and demonstrate how to use the headset. participant will be then allowed to play a game using the hand controllers for up to 30 minutes. Finally, a copy of exercises for their home rehabilitation program will be provided. During the next rehabilitation visits, a trained research assistant will guide the stroke survivor with using the gaming headset. The session will be stopped every 20 minutes to make sure that the stroke survivor is feeling well and to give them a break. The stroke survivor may stop the session at any time. This session will last for an hour. | Device | Oculus VR |
Primary outcome
Feasibility as Assessed by the Number of Sessions Attended
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
The minimum number of sessions expected for a user are 2 per week (8 sessions)
Feasibility as Assessed by the Time Spent Using the Oculus VR
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
the minimum time spent playing Job Simulator is 1 hour (60 minutes) per week. (240 minutes through the end of the study)
Usability as Assessed by the Score on the System Usability Scale (SUS)
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to assess the usability of the technology. Total score ranges from 10 to 50, with a higher score indicating greater usability.
Usability as Assessed by the Score on the Presence Questionnaire (PQ)
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
The Presence Questionnaire (PQ), total score ranges from 29 to 87, with a higher score indicating greater usability.
Cognition as Assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Time frame: Baseline
Total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) range from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.
Cognition as Assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Time frame: end of intervention (about 4 weeks from baseline)
Total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) range from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.
Limb Function as Assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Time frame: Baseline
Total score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), ranging from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Limb Function as Assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Total score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), ranging from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Arm Impairment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer - Upper Extremity Assessment
Time frame: Baseline
Total score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), ranges from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better arm function.
Arm Impairment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer - Upper Extremity Assessment
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Total score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), ranges from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better arm function.
Burden of Caregivers in Supporting the Stroke Survivor as Assessed by the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - Short Version
Time frame: Baseline
Total score on the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - short version, ranges from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating more burden
Burden of Caregivers in Supporting the Stroke Survivor as Assessed by the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - Short Version
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Total score on the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers - short version, ranges from 0 to 30, with a higher score indicating more burden
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Baseline
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
Acceptability (Ease of Use) as Assessed by the Score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Questionnaire
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day 3)
Total score on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) questionnaire ranges from 16 to 64, a higher score indicating more cybersickness
38 secondary outcomes
Impact of the Rehabilitation on the Participant as Assessed by the Number of Themes Derived From the Qualitative Interview
Time frame: Baseline
Impact of the Rehabilitation on the Caregiver as Assessed by Number of Themes Derived From the Qualitative Interview
Time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Occupational Therapy
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day3 )
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Physical Therapy
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day3 )
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 1 (week 1 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 2 (week 1 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 3 (week 1 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 4(week 2 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 5 (week 2 day2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 6 (week 2 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 7 (week 3 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 8 (week 3 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 9 (week 3 day 3)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 10 (week 4 day 1)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 11 (week 4 day 2)
Number of Subjects Who Have Received Speech Therapy
Time frame: Session 12 (week 4 day 3)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Aug 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Safety and Efficacy of CG-BM1 in Ischemic Stroke
Ischemic Stroke or High-risk TIA (ABCD² ≥ 4)
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Recombinant Human Prourokinase for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Extended Window Selected by CT-Based Artificial Intelligence
Acute Ischemic Stroke
Recruiting
Effects of Mirror Therapy and Motor Imagery on Upper Limb Motor Functions in Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke
Stroke
Recruiting
Rapid Local Ischemic Postconditioning on Stroke After Thrombectomy
Acute Ischemic Stroke
Not yet recruitingObservational study
The GEIR Registry: Rationale and Design of the First Nationwide Multicentre Retinal Stroke Registry in Spain
Retinal Artery Occlusion
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Seema S Aggarwal, PhD, APRN, AGNP-C principal investigator
The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Oculus VR in people with Stroke, run by The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 17 Aug 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Feasibility as Assessed by the Number of Sessions Attended (time frame: end of intervention( about 4 weeks from baseline)). The study lists 25 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Aug 2025.