Neuropsychological assessment of visual selective attention and processing capacity with head-mounted displays.

Abstract

Objective: Neuropsychological patients often suffer from impairments in visual selective attention and processing capacity components. Their assessment demands a high standardization of testing conditions, which is difficult to achieve across institutions. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) provide a solution. These virtual reality devices cover the entire visual field in a shielded way and thus keep visual stimulation constant. For neuropsychological assessment with HMDs, sufficient reliability is required. We have previously demonstrated that an early developer version of an HMD can be used to reliably measure components of visual processing capacity. However, it is unclear whether this also holds for the assessment of components of visual selective attention. Moreover, it has yet to be established whether now commercially available HMDs are capable of reliable neuropsychological assessment. Method: We assessed the test-retest reliabilities of several components of visual selective attention and processing capacity of healthy subjects with the commercially available HTC Vive. Using an assessment procedure (combiTVA) derived from the theory of visual attention (Bundesen, 1990), we measured attentional selectivity, lateral bias, processing speed, visual working memory capacity, and the threshold of conscious perception. We compared the reliabilities of these components measured with the HTC Vive with those of a cathode ray tube (CRT)-screen, the gold-standard of visual presentation in the laboratory. Results: Both devices provided comparable reliabilities. Conclusions: Thus, HMDs fulfill the requirement to replace standard screens. With their inherent visual standardization and portability, they offer unprecedented opportunities for neuropsychological assessment, such as computerized bedside testing and comparisons of test values across institutions.

Salzburg Visual Field Trainer (SVFT): A virtual reality device for (the evaluation of) neuropsychological rehabilitation

“…Compared to traditional personal computer and monitor based VRT approaches, our virtual reality based SVFT device offers a number of advantages—in part already discussed by other research groups [ 25 , 26 ]—which all potentially increase patients’ motivation and compliance to engage in regularly repeated neuropsychological rehabilitation. (1) The training situation becomes significantly more comfortable and convenient as no chin and head rest is necessary.…”

Triggering Postural Movements With Virtual Reality Technology in Healthy Young and Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Validation Study for Early Dementia Screening

“…A head-mounted display (HMD) has the potential to provide more immersive VR environments. Testretest reliability of visual processing components revealed that HMD-based assessment was comparable to the assessment with standard CRT computer screen, thus suggesting that HMD was applicable for standardized and reliable neuropsychological assessment (23,24).…”

A global collaboration to study intimate partner violence-related head trauma: The ENIGMA consortium IPV working group

“…In addition, to further promote study feasibility and generalizability of study outcomes, we also support the use of the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (Alosco et al, 2017;Dams-O'Connor et al, 2018;Lee, Jayasinghe, Swenson, & Dams-O'Connor, 2019;Tun & Lachman, 2006) for participants who cannot attend test sessions in-person. It should also be noted that there is a major movement in neurocognitive assessment to capitalize on virtual technologies (Parsons, McMahan, & Kane, 2018), where the potential may be to better customize the assessment tailored to the symptoms/problems being experienced by the examinee, using more real-world virtual assessment technologies (Foerster, Poth, Behler, Botsch, & Schneider, 2019). Virtual technologies and telehealth assessment/treatment are particularly important for populations and events that make completing faceto-face research and support difficult (e.g., rural populations, pandemics, and natural disasters; Edwards, 2015;Lanier & Maume, 2009;Peek-Asa et al, 2011;Schneider, Harknett, & McLanahan, 2016;Schumacher et al, 2010).…”