Brain and Behavior (May 2024)

Digital therapeutics using virtual reality‐based visual perceptual learning for visual field defects in stroke: A double‐blind randomized trial

  • Eun Namgung,
  • Sun U. Kwon,
  • Moon‐Ku Han,
  • Gyeong‐Moon Kim,
  • Hahn Young Kim,
  • Kwang‐Yeol Park,
  • Moonju Cho,
  • Ha‐Gyun Choi,
  • Hyun‐Wook Nah,
  • Hyun Taek Lim,
  • Dong‐Wha Kang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3525
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 5
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction Visual field defects (VFDs) represent a debilitating poststroke complication, characterized by unseen parts of the visual field. Visual perceptual learning (VPL), involving repetitive visual training in blind visual fields, may effectively restore visual field sensitivity in cortical blindness. This current multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial investigated the efficacy and safety of VPL‐based digital therapeutics (Nunap Vision [NV]) for treating poststroke VFDs. Methods Stroke outpatients with VFDs (>6 months after stroke onset) were randomized into NV (defective field training) or Nunap Vision‐Control (NV‐C, central field training) groups. Both interventions provided visual perceptual training, consisting of orientation, rotation, and depth discrimination, through a virtual reality head‐mounted display device 5 days a week for 12 weeks. The two groups received VFD assessments using Humphrey visual field (HVF) tests at baseline and 12‐week follow‐up. The final analysis included those completed the study (NV, n = 40; NV‐C, n = 35). Efficacy measures included improved visual area (sensitivity ≥6 dB) and changes in the HVF scores during the 12‐week period. Results With a high compliance rate, NV and NV‐C training improved the visual areas in the defective hemifield (>72 degrees2) and the whole field (>108 degrees2), which are clinically meaningful improvements despite no significant between‐group differences. According to within‐group analyses, mean total deviation scores in the defective hemifield improved after NV training (p = .03) but not after NV‐C training (p = .12). Conclusions The current trial suggests that VPL‐based digital therapeutics may induce clinically meaningful visual improvements in patients with poststroke VFDs. Yet, between‐group differences in therapeutic efficacy were not found as NV‐C training exhibited unexpected improvement comparable to NV training, possibly due to learning transfer effects.

Keywords