Introduction
Accurate and timely assessment of motor function is essential to optimising rehabilitation outcomes in people with neurological conditions. Assessment tools in neurorehabilitation serve as a foundation, enabling physiotherapists to quantify baseline impairments, guide intervention planning, monitor progress, and make informed decisions about long-term care or return to daily activities [ 30 ]. Widely used assessments for upper limb impairments—such as the Box and Block Test (BBT), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT)—have well-established validity and reliability [ 19 , 31 , 36 ]. However, these assessments rely on manual scoring, provide limited kinematic detail, and are restricted by the ceiling effect [ 18 , 25 ]. Such shortcomings reduce sensitivity to subtle functional changes over time, compromise ecological validity, and constrain opportunities for frequent or remote monitoring [ 40 ].
In recent years, virtual reality (VR) technologies have emerged as promising tools for rehabilitation. By simulating real-world or relevant tasks in a controlled environment, VR can combine the standardisation of traditional assessments with enhanced data capture through built-in sensors [ 29 ]. Advances in VR technology—such as head-mounted displays (HMDs), optical tracking, and haptic feedback—enable real-time quantification of movement kinematics, reaction times, force generation, and even cognitive–motor integration [ 13 ]. Equally importantly, VR allows assessments to be administered in immersive and engaging contexts, which may improve patient motivation and adherence [ 21 ]. Collectively, these features open new avenues for VR not only as a therapeutic intervention but also as an assessment platform with the potential to augment conventional assessments.
Despite these capabilities, most VR research in neurorehabilitation has focused on its therapeutic applications [ 3 ]. Far fewer studies have investigated VR as an assessment tool, where its ability to capture detailed, objective, and ecologically valid performance data could be transformative. Therefore, there is a need to systematically map how VR has been applied in neurorehabilitation assessments, the populations and conditions it has targeted, and the gaps that remain unaddressed. Accordingly, the aims of this scoping review were to: (1) identify the types of VR-based assessment tools used in neurorehabilitation; (2) determine the neurological conditions they assess (e.g., cerebral palsy, stroke, Parkinson’s disease); (3) map their technological specifications (e.g., VR system type, hardware and software used); and (4) highlight existing gaps and future research directions in VR-based assessments.
Materials and methods
This scoping review followed the five stages outlined by Pham et al. [ 28 ], Arksey and O'malley [ 4 ]: (1) identifying the specific query or problem to be investigated,(2) identifying pertinent research papers; (3) selecting appropriate studies; (4) organising the data; and (5) compiling, summarising, and presenting the findings. In addition, the review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews [ 27 ] and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines (refer to Appendix 1) [ 39 ]. The protocol of this scoping review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251113260) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251113260 . The protocol specified the PCC framework (Population: individuals with neurological conditions of any age; Concept: VR–based tools or systems used for the assessment of motor, cognitive, or functional performance; Context: clinical, laboratory, or rehabilitation research settings). The inclusion and exclusion criteria, along with planned databases, were defined accordingly. The review was conducted in full accordance with the protocol, and no deviations or amendments occurred during its execution.
Guiding research questions
To develop a comprehensive understanding of the role of VR as an assessment tool in neurorehabilitation, this review was guided by the following questions: What types of VR-based assessment tools have been developed and used in neurorehabilitation? Which neurological conditions are most frequently assessed using VR-based assessment tools? What are the technological specifications (e.g., VR system type, hardware, software) of these assessment tools? What gaps exist in the current literature on VR-based assessments, and what directions should future research take?
Identification of relevant studies
A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases: EMBASE (via Ovid), Medline (via Ovid), PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), IEEE Xplore, and relevant grey literature sources, including ERIC, ICTRP, EU-CTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EThOS databases. Both Medline and PubMed were searched to ensure comprehensive coverage, as PubMed often includes newly accepted and ahead-of-print records that are not yet indexed in Medline. The search covered the period from database inception to July 2025. Specific keywords, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), and Boolean operators (AND/OR) were used to combine terms (Appendix 2).
The search strategy was first developed and tested in PubMed, then adapted for use in the other databases, with modifications as needed. The full PubMed search strategy is reported in Appendix 2. Adapted strategies for Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, and EMBASE/Ovid are provided in Appendix 3. In addition, reference lists of relevant papers were manually screened to identify additional eligible studies not captured by the database searches. No attempts were made to contact authors for supplementary sources.
Study selection process
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: Examined the use of VR as an assessment tool in neurorehabilitation. Involved participants with neurological conditions such as cerebral palsy, stroke, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, or Parkinson’s disease. Studies involving healthy participants or healthcare professionals were included when these cohorts were integral to validation, usability testing, or direct comparison with neurological cohorts. Did not restrict study design (e.g., experimental, observational, pilot, feasibility studies, or case reports). Were published in English due to limited availability of translation resources for non-English studies.
Studies were excluded if they: Focused solely on VR-based interventions without an assessment application. Did not report assessment measures or assessment outcomes. Were review articles, opinion pieces, or abstracts without available full texts.
Search results were exported to an Excel spreadsheet for management and screening. Duplicates were identified and removed using a combination of Excel filtering and manual review, based on matching fields (author, title, year, and DOI). After removing duplicates, three independent reviewers (S. Alkhannani, A. Alharbi, and S. Almuayrifi) screened titles and abstracts against the predefined inclusion criteria to identify potentially relevant studies. Full texts of these studies were then retrieved and assessed for eligibility, with inclusion and exclusion criteria reapplied. Reasons for exclusion were documented at the full-text stage. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or consultation with other reviewers (M. Alrashidi and A.S. Alanazi).
Data charting process
Three independent reviewers extracted data using a predefined Excel spreadsheet, working in parallel to minimise selection bias. The lead author subsequently cross-checked all extracted data against the full texts to ensure accuracy. This process followed the guidance for conducting scoping reviews outlined by Peters et al. [ 27 ].
The data extraction template captured the following key elements from each study: ▪ Authors and year of publication ▪ Population and sample size ▪ Age (mean ± standard deviation) ▪ Psychometric properties tested ▪ Technology specifications ▪ Outcome measures ▪ Key findings
Any disagreements regarding extracted data were resolved through discussion and, when necessary, by revisiting the full texts. This process ensured a thorough and reliable extraction, providing a robust foundation for subsequent analysis. No critical appraisal of the included studies was undertaken, as such appraisal is not essential for scoping reviews and is not a mandatory component [ 4 , 39 ].
Synthesis of results
Findings from the included studies were synthesised descriptively to map the current use of VR as an assessment tool in neurorehabilitation. The narrative synthesis was guided by the review objectives and involved grouping extracted data into thematic categories: ▪ Types of VR-based assessment tools ▪ Neurological conditions assessed ▪ Technological specifications ▪ Identified research gaps
Results
Study selection
A total of 839 studies were identified through the systematic search of electronic databases. No eligible records were identified from grey literature sources, which may indicate a limited number of unpublished or non-indexed studies addressing this topic. After removing duplicates, 294 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 39 were assessed in full text. Twenty-three studies were excluded at the full-text stage for the following reasons: different clinical population ( n = 9), study protocols ( n = 4), conference posters only ( n = 3), and intervention studies ( n = 7). Sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram outlining the study selection process. Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the selection process
Study characteristics
Table 1 provides a summary of the 16 studies included in this review, which collectively examined 836 participants across a range of populations, including healthy participants, stroke survivors, people with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy (CP), children with movement disorders (e.g., dystonia, chorea, chorea-dystonia), spinal cord injuries, unilateral spatial neglect, and athletes at risk for concussion. Ages ranged from 5 to 74 years, with several studies including both paediatric and adult participants. Sample sizes varied considerably, from as few as 4 participants to as many as 242. The vast majority (14 out of 16) of the included studies were published within the last 10 years. Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies Authors Population Total number ( n = female) Age (years) (mean ± SD) Psychometric properties tested Technology specifications Outcome measures Key findings Burton et al. [ 6 ] Participants with stroke 30 ( n = 8) Healthy participants 25 ( n = 15) Healthcare professionals 11 (PTs = 5, OTs = 4 and MDs = 2) ( n = NR) Participants with stroke (59.8 ± 10.87) Healthy participants (46.2 ± 23.23) Healthcare professionals (30 ± 7.3) Validity Oculus Meta Quest-2 HMD ARAT and ARAT-VR The researchers in this study evaluated two versions of the test—ARAT-13 and ARAT-19. Strong correlations were found between the ARAT-VR and both versions: ARAT-13 ( r = 0.84) and ARAT-19 ( r = 0.83), indicating comparable performance across the different formats. Additionally, the tool demonstrated excellent usability (SUS = 82.5 [range 75–90]) and outstanding test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.99; p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals rated the ARAT-VR as equivalent to the classical version in all tasks except for the marbles subtest, which was perceived as more challenging in the virtual format Cho et al. [ 7 ] Participants with stroke 9 ( n = 4) 67 ± 8 Validity Oculus Rift HMD Classical BBT and VR version All participants completed both the BBT and VR-BBT, but block counts were significantly lower in the virtual version for both hemiplegic and non-hemiplegic sides ( p < 0.001). Strong correlations were observed between BBT and VR-BBT block counts for the non-hemiplegic ( r = 0.904, p = 0.001) and hemiplegic sides ( r = 0.788, p = 0.012), as well as between ratio percentages ( r = 0.860, p = 0.003) Dong et al. [ 8 ] Participants with stroke 16 ( n = 5) Healthy participants 113 Participants with stroke 67.88 ± 10.93 Healthy participants ( n = NR) Validity, reliability Oculus Rift HMD VR version of BBT The VR-BBT demonstrated strong validity indicators and good test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65–0.83). It provided an engaging method for assessing upper-extremity motor function using kinematic metrics, and the integration of haptic feedback enhanced the precision of upper-limb performance assessment Everard et al. [ 10 ] participants with stroke 22 ( n = 5) Healthy participants 23 ( n = 13) Participants with stroke (64 ± 10.9) Healthy participants (47 ± 23.9) Validity Oculus Quest-1 HMD Classical BBT and VR version Results showed strong correlations between the classical BBT and VR-BBT scores in stroke patients for paretic ( r = 0.89; p < 0.001) and non-paretic hands ( r = 0.76; p < 0.001), and in healthy participants for dominant ( r = 0.58; p < 0.01) and non-dominant hands ( r = 0.68; p < 0.001) Everard et al. [ 9 ] Participants with stroke 21 ( n = 6) Healthy participants 21 ( n = 10) Participants with stroke (65 ± 7.2) Healthy participants (56 ± 11) Validity, reliability, usability Oculus Quest-1 HMD, interactive tablet (REAtouch) Three versions of the BBT: immersive VR with controllers, immersive VR with hand-tracking and with mixed reality Healthcare professionals rated the BBT version of VR hand-tracking and BBT mixed reality as equally difficult compared to the traditional BBT, while VR-BBT with controllers was perceived as more difficult. In terms of convergent validity, VR-BBT with hand-tracking and classical BBT and its VR version showed strong correlations with the traditional BBT ( r = 0.94 and r = 0.95, respectively), whereas BBT VR with controllers showed a weaker correlation ( r = 0.65). Usability ratings were excellent for both VR- BBT with hand tracking and mixed reality BBT, with median SUS scores of 83 Gracia-Ibanez et al. [ 12 ] SCI patients 4 ( n = 0) Healthy individuals 9 ( n = 8) SCI patients (34.75 ± 13.07) Healthy individuals (33.33 ± 13.12) Reliability LMC and a monitor screen Classical BBT and VR version Both groups showed greater trajectory length and velocity peaks in the VR-BBT, with more pronounced changes in SCI patients. SCI participants also had increased finger/thumb flexion and higher muscle activity, indicating impaired coordination and compensatory overactivation, while healthy individuals showed lower EMG activity and more consistent movement patterns. These results underline the likely value of VR-BBT in detecting subtle differences in the dynamic performance of manual dexterity Kanzler et al. [ 14 ] Participants with MS 31 ( n = 15) Healthy participants 27 ( n = 12) Participants with MS (56 ± 19.5) Healthy participants (30.5 ± 15.5) Validity, usability Commercial haptic device, a custom-made handle and a monitor VPIT, VPIT-2H and PPIT Intra-participant variability increased with task complexity and was higher in VR, but this did not affect measurement error or reliability. The complex VR task showed greater responsiveness to changes in MS patients, while both VR and physical tasks maintained good clinimetric properties. However, patients rated the physical version as more usable Lambercy et al. [ 17 ] Participants with MS 10 ( n = 6) Healthy participants 8 ( n = 4) Participants with MS (47.40 ± 3.89) Healthy participants (48.63 ± 4.58) Validity Commercial haptic device, a custom-made handle and a monitor VPIT Upper limb movements in MS patients were significantly slower, less smooth, and less straight than those of healthy controls. Completion time on the VPIT showed a strong correlation with the conventional NHPT ( r = 0.658, p < 0.01). Additionally, frequency analysis enabled the detection and quantification of intention tremor in the 3–5 Hz range. These preliminary findings demonstrate the feasibility of using the VPIT with individuals with MS and highlight its potential as a tool for evaluating upper limb motor function Menici et al. [ 22 ] Children with MDs (dystonia, chorea, chorea-dystonia, CP) 16 ( n = NR) 10.68 ± 3.62 Usability VRRS based on augmented feedback VRRS This pilot study highlights the potential of the VRRS system, in enhancing the rehabilitating postural control and dynamic balance in children with MDs Oña et al. [ 23 ] Participants with PD 9 ( n = 1) 71.89 ± 3.66 Validity, reliability LMC and Oculus Rift HMD VR version of BBT Statistical analysis showed that the performance data from the VR-BBT strongly correlated with the well-validated classical BBT and demonstrated high test–retest reliability. These findings support the use of the VR-BBT as a valid and reliable tool for monitoring manual function improvements Oña et al. [ 24 ] Participants with PD 20 ( n = 3) 74.35 ± 0.94 Validity LMC and Oculus Rift HMD Classical BBT and VR version The VR-BBT showed strong correlations with classical BBT scores and PD severity (Hoehn and Yahr scale), indicating its potential as a reliable tool for tracking health improvements in PD patients. Authors concluded that the VR-BBT system demonstrated high usability and acceptability, as rated by both clinicians and patients Perez-Nombela et al. [ 26 ] Children with UCP 7 ( n = 0) 5.1 ± 1.6 Feasibility, validity LMC Classical BBT and VR version Children scored higher in classical BBT. In the last assessment, children reached 28.17 (SD:6.31) blocks per minute in the classical BBT and 9.00 (SD:5.90) in the VR- BBT Rosselli et al. [ 32 ] Participants with stroke 37 ( n = 20) 37 children with CP ( n = 24) Healthy Participants 205 ( n = 75) Participants with stroke (61.7; SD = NR) Children with CP (9.6; SD = NR) Healthy participants (23.31; SD = NR) Validity Interactive tablet (REAtouch) Classical BBT and VR version The study findings show that the VR-BBT is the most suitable for directly assessing manual dexterity using the REAtouch® device, with potential applications in telerehabilitation. The authors emphasized the need to establish normative data to enable reliable comparisons Slobounov et al. [ 34 ] 55 student-athletes at risk for concussion ( n = 0) 19.5 (Range 18–25) Validity Rear-projected 3D stereo display (6 × 8 ft) operating at 200 Hz, integrated with an AMTI force platform and Flock of Birds motion-analysis system AMTI force plate and motion tracking (Flock of Birds) Visual field motion caused long-lasting balance destabilization in concussed individuals but not in controls, even when standard balance tests showed no deficits Thomasson et al. [ 37 ] USN 39 ( n = 14) 60.1 ± 7.9 Validity, sensitivity Oculus Rift HMD Interactive custom-built VR tasks Voxel lesion-symptom mapping showed that the deficits identified in VR were linked to damage in the insular and temporal cortex, areas involved in spatial processing. These findings suggest that the immersive VR task is an effective and sensitive tool for detecting mild to severe signs of USN in the extra-personal space Tobler-Ammann et al. [ 38 ] Participants with stroke 31 ( n = 8) 62.7 ± 15.1 Validity, reliability Commercial haptic device, a custom-made handle and a monitor VPIT, NHPT and BBT The authors concluded that the VPIT is a promising tool for assessing upper limb function in stroke patients, especially when more detailed evaluation is needed beyond what the traditional NHPT and BBT offer. Although the test can be challenging and shows high variability between trials, a proper orientation helps patients become familiar with it. Once familiarized with the test, the VPIT provides more objective and detailed insights than traditional hand function assessments Abbreviations : PTs Physiotherapists’, OTs Occupational therapists, MD Medical doctor, SD Standard deviation, VR’ Virtual reality, UCP Unilateral cerebral palsy, BBT Box and block test, NHPT Nine-hole peg test, VPIT Virtual peg insertion test, VPIT-2H A virtual reality version of virtual peg insertion test with reduced task complexity, PPIT Physical peg insertion test, ARAT Action research arm test, VRRS Virtual reality rehabilitation system, PD Parkinson’s disease, MS Multiple sclerosis, MDs Movement disorders, SCI Spinal cord injuries, USN Unilateral spatial neglect, r Pearson’s correlation coefficient, ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient, SUS System usability scale, EMG Electromyography, HMD Head-mounted display, LMC Leap motion controller, NR Not reported Data are presented as reported in the original studies. Not all studies provided complete statistical indices (e.g., ICCs, CIs, SEM/SDC, AUC) or demographic details (e.g., sex breakdown, SDs). Where quantitative metrics were unavailable, findings are summarized narratively
Table 1
Characteristics of the included studies
Abbreviations : PTs Physiotherapists’, OTs Occupational therapists, MD Medical doctor, SD Standard deviation, VR’ Virtual reality, UCP Unilateral cerebral palsy, BBT Box and block test, NHPT Nine-hole peg test, VPIT Virtual peg insertion test, VPIT-2H A virtual reality version of virtual peg insertion test with reduced task complexity, PPIT Physical peg insertion test, ARAT Action research arm test, VRRS Virtual reality rehabilitation system, PD Parkinson’s disease, MS Multiple sclerosis, MDs Movement disorders, SCI Spinal cord injuries, USN Unilateral spatial neglect, r Pearson’s correlation coefficient, ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient, SUS System usability scale, EMG Electromyography, HMD Head-mounted display, LMC Leap motion controller, NR Not reported Data are presented as reported in the original studies. Not all studies provided complete statistical indices (e.g., ICCs, CIs, SEM/SDC, AUC) or demographic details (e.g., sex breakdown, SDs). Where quantitative metrics were unavailable, findings are summarized narratively
| Authors | Population Total number ( n = female) | Age (years) (mean ± SD) | Psychometric properties tested | Technology specifications | Outcome measures | Key findings |
| Burton et al. [ 6 ] | Participants with stroke 30 ( n = 8) Healthy participants 25 ( n = 15) Healthcare professionals 11 (PTs = 5, OTs = 4 and MDs = 2) ( n = NR) | Participants with stroke (59.8 ± 10.87) Healthy participants (46.2 ± 23.23) Healthcare professionals (30 ± 7.3) | Validity | Oculus Meta Quest-2 HMD | ARAT and ARAT-VR | The researchers in this study evaluated two versions of the test—ARAT-13 and ARAT-19. Strong correlations were found between the ARAT-VR and both versions: ARAT-13 ( r = 0.84) and ARAT-19 ( r = 0.83), indicating comparable performance across the different formats. Additionally, the tool demonstrated excellent usability (SUS = 82.5 [range 75–90]) and outstanding test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.99; p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals rated the ARAT-VR as equivalent to the classical version in all tasks except for the marbles subtest, which was perceived as more challenging in the virtual format |
| Cho et al. [ 7 ] | Participants with stroke 9 ( n = 4) | 67 ± 8 | Validity | Oculus Rift HMD | Classical BBT and VR version | All participants completed both the BBT and VR-BBT, but block counts were significantly lower in the virtual version for both hemiplegic and non-hemiplegic sides ( p < 0.001). Strong correlations were observed between BBT and VR-BBT block counts for the non-hemiplegic ( r = 0.904, p = 0.001) and hemiplegic sides ( r = 0.788, p = 0.012), as well as between ratio percentages ( r = 0.860, p = 0.003) |
| Dong et al. [ 8 ] | Participants with stroke 16 ( n = 5) Healthy participants 113 | Participants with stroke 67.88 ± 10.93 Healthy participants ( n = NR) | Validity, reliability | Oculus Rift HMD | VR version of BBT | The VR-BBT demonstrated strong validity indicators and good test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65–0.83). It provided an engaging method for assessing upper-extremity motor function using kinematic metrics, and the integration of haptic feedback enhanced the precision of upper-limb performance assessment |
| Everard et al. [ 10 ] | participants with stroke 22 ( n = 5) Healthy participants 23 ( n = 13) | Participants with stroke (64 ± 10.9) Healthy participants (47 ± 23.9) | Validity | Oculus Quest-1 HMD | Classical BBT and VR version | Results showed strong correlations between the classical BBT and VR-BBT scores in stroke patients for paretic ( r = 0.89; p < 0.001) and non-paretic hands ( r = 0.76; p < 0.001), and in healthy participants for dominant ( r = 0.58; p < 0.01) and non-dominant hands ( r = 0.68; p < 0.001) |
| Everard et al. [ 9 ] | Participants with stroke 21 ( n = 6) Healthy participants 21 ( n = 10) | Participants with stroke (65 ± 7.2) Healthy participants (56 ± 11) | Validity, reliability, usability | Oculus Quest-1 HMD, interactive tablet (REAtouch) | Three versions of the BBT: immersive VR with controllers, immersive VR with hand-tracking and with mixed reality | Healthcare professionals rated the BBT version of VR hand-tracking and BBT mixed reality as equally difficult compared to the traditional BBT, while VR-BBT with controllers was perceived as more difficult. In terms of convergent validity, VR-BBT with hand-tracking and classical BBT and its VR version showed strong correlations with the traditional BBT ( r = 0.94 and r = 0.95, respectively), whereas BBT VR with controllers showed a weaker correlation ( r = 0.65). Usability ratings were excellent for both VR- BBT with hand tracking and mixed reality BBT, with median SUS scores of 83 |
| Gracia-Ibanez et al. [ 12 ] | SCI patients 4 ( n = 0) Healthy individuals 9 ( n = 8) | SCI patients (34.75 ± 13.07) Healthy individuals (33.33 ± 13.12) | Reliability | LMC and a monitor screen | Classical BBT and VR version | Both groups showed greater trajectory length and velocity peaks in the VR-BBT, with more pronounced changes in SCI patients. SCI participants also had increased finger/thumb flexion and higher muscle activity, indicating impaired coordination and compensatory overactivation, while healthy individuals showed lower EMG activity and more consistent movement patterns. These results underline the likely value of VR-BBT in detecting subtle differences in the dynamic performance of manual dexterity |
| Kanzler et al. [ 14 ] | Participants with MS 31 ( n = 15) Healthy participants 27 ( n = 12) | Participants with MS (56 ± 19.5) Healthy participants (30.5 ± 15.5) | Validity, usability | Commercial haptic device, a custom-made handle and a monitor | VPIT, VPIT-2H and PPIT | Intra-participant variability increased with task complexity and was higher in VR, but this did not affect measurement error or reliability. The complex VR task showed greater responsiveness to changes in MS patients, while both VR and physical tasks maintained good clinimetric properties. However, patients rated the physical version as more usable |
| Lambercy et al. [ 17 ] | Participants with MS 10 ( n = 6) Healthy participants 8 ( n = 4) | Participants with MS (47.40 ± 3.89) Healthy participants (48.63 ± 4.58) | Validity | Commercial haptic device, a custom-made handle and a monitor | VPIT | Upper limb movements in MS patients were significantly slower, less smooth, and less straight than those of healthy controls. Completion time on the VPIT showed a strong correlation with the conventional NHPT ( r = 0.658, p < 0.01). Additionally, frequency analysis enabled the detection and quantification of intention tremor in the 3–5 Hz range. These preliminary findings demonstrate the feasibility of using the VPIT with individuals with MS and highlight its potential as a tool for evaluating upper limb motor function |
| Menici et al. [ 22 ] | Children with MDs (dystonia, chorea, chorea-dystonia, CP) 16 ( n = NR) | 10.68 ± 3.62 | Usability | VRRS based on augmented feedback | VRRS | This pilot study highlights the potential of the VRRS system, in enhancing the rehabilitating postural control and dynamic balance in children with MDs |
| Oña et al. [ 23 ] | Participants with PD 9 ( n = 1) | 71.89 ± 3.66 | Validity, reliability | LMC and Oculus Rift HMD | VR version of BBT | Statistical analysis showed that the performance data from the VR-BBT strongly correlated with the well-validated classical BBT and demonstrated high test–retest reliability. These findings support the use of the VR-BBT as a valid and reliable tool for monitoring manual function improvements |
| Oña et al. [ 24 ] | Participants with PD 20 ( n = 3) | 74.35 ± 0.94 | Validity | LMC and Oculus Rift HMD | Classical BBT and VR version | The VR-BBT showed strong correlations with classical BBT scores and PD severity (Hoehn and Yahr scale), indicating its potential as a reliable tool for tracking health improvements in PD patients. Authors concluded that the VR-BBT system demonstrated high usability and acceptability, as rated by both clinicians and patients |
| Perez-Nombela et al. [ 26 ] | Children with UCP 7 ( n = 0) | 5.1 ± 1.6 | Feasibility, validity | LMC | Classical BBT and VR version | Children scored higher in classical BBT. In the last assessment, children reached 28.17 (SD:6.31) blocks per minute in the classical BBT and 9.00 (SD:5.90) in the VR- BBT |
| Rosselli et al. [ 32 ] | Participants with stroke 37 ( n = 20) 37 children with CP ( n = 24) Healthy Participants 205 ( n = 75) | Participants with stroke (61.7; SD = NR) Children with CP (9.6; SD = NR) Healthy participants (23.31; SD = NR) | Validity | Interactive tablet (REAtouch) | Classical BBT and VR version | The study findings show that the VR-BBT is the most suitable for directly assessing manual dexterity using the REAtouch® device, with potential applications in telerehabilitation. The authors emphasized the need to establish normative data to enable reliable comparisons |
| Slobounov et al. [ 34 ] | 55 student-athletes at risk for concussion ( n = 0) | 19.5 (Range 18–25) | Validity | Rear-projected 3D stereo display (6 × 8 ft) operating at 200 Hz, integrated with an AMTI force platform and Flock of Birds motion-analysis system | AMTI force plate and motion tracking (Flock of Birds) | Visual field motion caused long-lasting balance destabilization in concussed individuals but not in controls, even when standard balance tests showed no deficits |
| Thomasson et al. [ 37 ] | USN 39 ( n = 14) | 60.1 ± 7.9 | Validity, sensitivity | Oculus Rift HMD | Interactive custom-built VR tasks | Voxel lesion-symptom mapping showed that the deficits identified in VR were linked to damage in the insular and temporal cortex, areas involved in spatial processing. These findings suggest that the immersive VR task is an effective and sensitive tool for detecting mild to severe signs of USN in the extra-personal space |
| Tobler-Ammann et al. [ 38 ] | Participants with stroke 31 ( n = 8) | 62.7 ± 15.1 | Validity, reliability | Commercial haptic device, a custom-made handle and a monitor | VPIT, NHPT and BBT | The authors concluded that the VPIT is a promising tool for assessing upper limb function in stroke patients, especially when more detailed evaluation is needed beyond what the traditional NHPT and BBT offer. Although the test can be challenging and shows high variability between trials, a proper orientation helps patients become familiar with it. Once familiarized with the test, the VPIT provides more objective and detailed insights than traditional hand function assessments |
Most studies investigated virtual adaptations of well-validated physical assessments, for example the BBT [ 7 – 10 , 12 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 32 ], the ARAT [ 6 ], and the VPIT [ 14 , 17 , 38 ]. Other tools included VR balance assessments and concussion assessments [ 34 ], custom-built VR environments and tasks for unilateral spatial neglect [ 37 ], and the Virtual Reality Rehabilitation System (VRRS) for children with movement disorders [ 22 ].
The VR-based tools targeted a variety of conditions, most commonly stroke [ 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 38 ], multiple sclerosis [ 14 , 17 ], Parkinson’s disease [ 23 , 24 ], CP [ 26 ], spinal cord injury [ 12 ], and children with movement disorders [ 22 ]. Some studies included healthy participants for validation purposes [ 10 , 32 ] or healthcare professionals for usability evaluation [ 6 ].
Technological specifications varied, with hardware ranging from bespoke setups using motion tracking systems (e.g., Flock of Birds, AMTI force plates) [ 34 ] to commercially available HMDs with hand-held controllers [ 9 ] or optical hand-tracking [ 9 ]. Several studies explored mixed-reality implementations [ 9 ] or integrated electromyography to capture muscle activity [ 12 ]. Usability ratings were generally high, with System Usability Scale (SUS) scores often exceeding 80 [ 6 , 9 , 24 ].
Few studies addressed long-term clinical utility or integration into routine workflows. Normative data for VR-based assessments were largely absent, and differences in interaction modalities (controller-based vs. hand-tracking) sometimes affected performance outcomes [ 9 ].
Discussion
The aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence on the use of VR as an assessment tool in neurorehabilitation, highlighting a rapidly evolving yet still emerging field. Across the included studies, the predominant approach was to adapt established clinical assessments—such as the BBT [ 7 – 10 , 12 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 32 ], the ARAT [ 6 ], and the VPIT [ 14 , 17 , 38 ]—into VR or mixed-reality formats. These adaptations generally demonstrated convergent validity with traditional measures and were often rated highly for usability; however, usability varied across conditions and modalities, with at least one study (multiple sclerosis cohort) reporting higher ratings for physical tasks compared to VR. Equally importantly, the strength of validity varied by modality, with weaker correlations observed in controller-based tasks compared to optical hand-tracking or mixed-reality systems. It is important to note that the studies included in this review primarily evaluated assessment-related properties (e.g., validity, reliability, feasibility) rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics; therefore, while VR-based assessments may hold future potential for diagnostic applications, the current evidence base should be interpreted within the scope of assessment rather than diagnostic performance.
The included studies highlighted several advantages of VR-based assessments over conventional tools, particularly the ability to capture detailed kinematic data, quantify subtle deficits, and conduct assessments in more engaging environments. This aligns with broader literature suggesting that VR’s potential lies not only in replicating physical tests but also in enhancing assessments with richer, objective metrics that may be sensitive enough to detect early subclinical impairments [ 1 , 41 ]. Equally importantly, the included studies generally demonstrated convergent validity across tools and conditions , although the strength of correlations varied depending on the assessment modality and population. This suggests that VR can serve as a clinically valuable assessment medium with potential diagnostic relevance, rather than merely a novelty add-on. Additionally, many VR platforms—such as Meta Quest and HTC Vive HMDs—captured granular movement data beyond what traditional stopwatch-and-score methods allow, offering potential for improved assessments sensitivity and richer clinical insights [ 35 ].
Another advantage is the broad applicability of VR assessments across diverse neurological populations. The included studies spanned both adult and paediatric cohorts, chronic and acute stages, and a range of motor and perceptual deficits. This breadth shows that VR-based assessments can be adapted to multiple rehabilitation contexts. Usability ratings were also generally high, though varied by condition and modality, reflecting strong overall acceptance and feasibility in real-world practice—an essential step toward translating VR assessments from research into clinical application [ 33 ].
The findings indicate that VR-based assessments are already capable of supplementing, and in some cases enhancing, traditional neurorehabilitation assessments. This has implications for clinical practice, as VR-based tools may be particularly valuable where kinematic precision, ecological validity, or patient engagement are priorities [ 5 ]. For example, optical hand-tracking systems in VR can quantify grasp movement smoothness in ways that may be more sensitive to mild impairments than timed functional tests alone [ 20 ]. However, before routine clinical adoption, there must be clear guidance on which VR systems are validated for which populations, along with training for clinicians to interpret VR-specific metrics and VR use [ 2 , 15 ]. These findings suggest that integration of VR-based assessments into electronic health records and rehabilitation software ecosystems may be an important future direction to support seamless clinical use, but this remains to be established through implementation studies [ 16 ].
However, a key limitation of this scoping review lies in the substantial methodological heterogeneity across the included studies. VR systems ranged from bespoke laboratory-based motion-tracking platforms to widely available commercial head-mounted displays. Similarly, interaction modalities varied considerably, with some studies relying on handheld controllers, others employing optical tracking of body segments, and a smaller number using mixed-reality environments. Outcome measures also lacked consistency, spanning kinematic metrics, cognitive–motor integration tasks, and clinical performance scores. This diversity makes direct comparisons between studies problematic and constrains the ability to draw firm conclusions about the overall validity or feasibility of VR-based assessments. For instance, controller-based interfaces may confound results by introducing fine motor demands, while optical tracking affords a more naturalistic assessment of gross motor performance. Commercial headsets offer greater accessibility and potential for scalability, yet their assessment precision remains less explored compared with custom-built systems.
This heterogeneity precludes quantitative pooling or meta-analytic synthesis of the included evidence. However, optical or marker less tracking systems tended to show stronger usability and ecological validity, as they capture natural movement patterns without imposing additional fine-motor control requirements. In contrast, controller-based systems may underestimate gross motor performance due to the added dexterity component. Custom-built laboratory platforms demonstrated high measurement precision and adaptability for research use, whereas commercial headsets offered greater affordability, portability, and scalability for clinical translation. These findings highlight an inherent trade-off between precision and accessibility that should be considered when selecting or designing VR-based assessment tools.
In addition to heterogeneity, the overall quality of the available evidence must also be considered. The majority of included studies were small-scale pilot or feasibility trials, often with limited sample sizes, a lack of control groups, and an absence of longitudinal follow-up or normative datasets. These methodological limitations further reduce the reliability and generalisability of findings and underscore that the evidence base remains preliminary. Together, these factors highlight the urgent need for greater standardisation in hardware, interaction design, outcome reporting, and study design to enable more robust comparisons and to strengthen the evidence base for future clinical application.
Despite promising preliminary evidence, substantial barriers remain before VR-based assessments can be adopted in routine clinical practice. Cost-effectiveness is a key concern, as many VR systems involve specialized hardware and software that may not be financially viable for widespread use without evidence of added value over existing assessment tools. Equally important is clinician training, since effective deployment requires not only technical competence but also confidence in integrating VR tools into everyday workflows. Without structured training programs and clear clinical guidelines, uptake is likely to be slow and uneven [ 11 ].
Integration within existing healthcare systems could also pose challenges. Current clinical pathways, record systems, and diagnostic frameworks are not yet designed to incorporate VR-based assessments, creating uncertainty around interoperability, data management, and regulatory approval. Furthermore, the lack of standardisation across platforms and protocols prevents meaningful comparison of results and limits scalability across centres. These challenges suggest that clinical translation will be gradual rather than immediate. Realistically, routine implementation will require stepwise progress through multicentre validation studies, cost-effectiveness evaluations, and the development of normative datasets and training frameworks. Addressing these priorities is essential to ensure that VR assessments can move from experimental prototypes to feasible, sustainable tools in clinical neurorehabilitation.
Based on the evidence mapped in this review, several priorities warrant focused attention to advance VR-based assessments in neurorehabilitation. In the near time , the most immediate needs relate to establishing clinical validity. Greater standardisation of protocols and reporting practices would enhance comparability between studies. This could include clearer documentation of task parameters (e.g., target size, such as the virtual cube or peg in a Box and Block–style or peg insertion task, task duration, or movement constraints), calibration procedures (e.g., workspace setup, reach distance), and core outcome metrics (e.g., movement time, smoothness, accuracy). Developing open or consensus-based reporting templates may help support replication and facilitate future meta-analyses. Transparent reporting of hardware and software specifications, calibration steps, and—where possible—raw or processed data availability would further improve reproducibility. While some device-specific efforts to establish normative datasets exist (e.g., REAtouch), few studies in this review—such as Thomasson et al. [ 37 ] and Everard et al. [ 10 ]—reported broader normative comparisons, and none provided datasets stratified by age, sex, or impairment severity. The lack of standardised, cross-platform reference data limits the interpretability of patient performance and the ability to distinguish developmental from pathological variability. Establishing shared normative frameworks would therefore represent a meaningful step toward improving the clinical reliability of VR-based assessments. Larger, collaborative studies involving diverse neurological populations are also needed to generate age-, sex-, and impairment-stratified reference values and to determine psychometric properties such as minimal detectable change and minimal clinically important difference. Well-designed cross-sectional and prospective studies could contribute valuable insights in this area. In parallel, short-term longitudinal investigations may help clarify whether VR-derived metrics can predict functional outcomes or responsiveness to rehabilitation interventions.
In longer term, continued technological refinement will be essential. Comparative studies across interaction modalities—such as controller-based input, optical tracking, and mixed reality—could help identify approaches best suited to specific clinical contexts. Integrating multimodal sensing (e.g., electromyography, eye tracking, haptic feedback) may also enrich data capture and enhance ecological validity. Finally, extending VR assessments to telerehabilitation settings offers potential to broaden accessibility and continuity of care, particularly in underserved regions.
There are limitations of the present review that must be acknowledged. First, although a comprehensive search strategy was applied across multiple databases and grey literature, it is possible that relevant studies were missed if they were not indexed, used alternative terminology, or were located outside of the searched platforms, which may have introduced selection bias. Equally important, identifying no eligible studies from grey literature sources may reflect the relatively limited dissemination of unpublished or non–peer-reviewed research in this area, which could restrict the comprehensiveness of evidence capture despite extensive searching. Second, as no formal critical appraisal was undertaken (consistent with scoping review methodology), the methodological quality of the included studies could not be assessed, and the risk of bias remains uncertain. Third, the substantial heterogeneity in VR systems, interaction modalities, study designs, and outcome measures precluded quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. Furthermore, this underscores that our findings should be interpreted as descriptive and exploratory rather than definitive. Additionally, the review did not chart adverse events such as cybersickness, which are pertinent to clinical feasibility and warrant systematic reporting in future studies. Finally, the review was limited to English-language publications, which may have excluded relevant work reported in other languages.
Conclusion
The aim of this scoping review was to provide the first comprehensive mapping of VR-based assessment tools in neurorehabilitation. While the field is still developing, the existing body of work offers preliminary evidence showing the potential validity, feasibility, and clinical value of VR assessments across a range of neurological conditions. These findings remain constrained by small sample sizes, heterogeneous populations, and limited replication. Future studies focusing on standardisation, normative data, and longitudinal validation are needed to determine whether VR-based assessments can progress beyond experimental prototypes toward broader clinical application.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1 Additional file 2 Additional file 3
Abbreviations
Virtual Reality
Box And Block Test
Action Research Arm Test
Nine-Hole Peg Test
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Head-Mounted Displays
Virtual Peg Insertion Test
System Usability Scale
Joanna Briggs Institute
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
Database searches and data extraction were conducted by S. Alkhannani, A. Alharbi, and S. Almuayrifi. Data analysis was performed by S. Alkhannani, A. Alharbi, and S. Almuayrifi, with input from M. Alrashidi and A.S. Alanazi. The manuscript was written by M. Alrashidi, with input from A.A. Alhammad, S.A. Alhammad, and A.S. Mashabi. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Alrashidi M Evans JO Tomlinson RJ Williams CA Buckingham G Examining the feasibility of immersive virtual reality to measure upper limb motor performance in typically developing children and adolescents Virtual Reality 2024 28 99 10.1007/s10055-024-00996-z Alrashidi M, Evans JO, Tomlinson RJ, Williams CA, Buckingham G. Examining the feasibility of immersive virtual reality to measure upper limb motor performance in typically developing children and adolescents. Virtual Reality. 2024;28:99. 10.1007/s10055-024-00996-z.
2. Alrashidi M Tomlinson RJ Buckingham G Williams CA Virtual reality current use, facilitators and barriers to implementation in paediatric physiotherapy: cross-sectional online survey of UK paediatric physiotherapists Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2024 10.1080/17483107.2024.2393695 39180393 Alrashidi M, Tomlinson RJ, Buckingham G, Williams CA. Virtual reality current use, facilitators and barriers to implementation in paediatric physiotherapy: cross-sectional online survey of UK paediatric physiotherapists. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2024b. 10.1080/17483107.2024.2393695. 39180393 10.1080/17483107.2024.2393695
3. Alrashidi M Wadey CA Tomlinson RJ Buckingham G Williams CA The efficacy of virtual reality interventions compared with conventional physiotherapy in improving the upper limb motor function of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials Disabil Rehabil 2023 45 1773 1783 10.1080/09638288.2022.2071484 35575755 Alrashidi M, Wadey CA, Tomlinson RJ, Buckingham G, Williams CA. The efficacy of virtual reality interventions compared with conventional physiotherapy in improving the upper limb motor function of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45:1773–83. 10.1080/09638288.2022.2071484. 35575755 10.1080/09638288.2022.2071484
4. Arksey H O’Malley L Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005 8 19 32 10.1080/1364557032000119616 Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616.
5. Brassel S Power E Campbell A Brunner M Togher L Recommendations for the design and implementation of virtual reality for acquired brain injury rehabilitation: systematic review J Med Internet Res 2021 23 e26344 10.2196/26344 34328434 PMC8367177 Brassel S, Power E, Campbell A, Brunner M, Togher L. Recommendations for the design and implementation of virtual reality for acquired brain injury rehabilitation: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e26344. 10.2196/26344. 34328434 10.2196/26344 PMC8367177
6. Burton Q Lejeune T Dehem S Lebrun N Ajana K Edwards MG Performing a shortened version of the Action Research Arm Test in immersive virtual reality to assess post-stroke upper limb activity J Neuroeng Rehabil 2022 19 133 10.1186/s12984-022-01114-3 PMC9719653 36463219 Burton Q, Lejeune T, Dehem S, Lebrun N, Ajana K, Edwards MG, et al. Performing a shortened version of the Action Research Arm Test in immersive virtual reality to assess post-stroke upper limb activity. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19:133. 10.1186/s12984-022-01114-3. 36463219 10.1186/s12984-022-01114-3 PMC9719653
7. Cho S Kim WS Paik NJ Bang H Upper-limb function assessment using VBBTs for stroke patients IEEE Comput Graph Appl 2015 36 70 8 10.1109/MCG.2015.2 25585413 Cho S, Kim WS, Paik NJ, Bang H. Upper-limb function assessment using VBBTs for stroke patients. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2015;36:70–8. 10.1109/MCG.2015.2. 25585413 10.1109/MCG.2015.2
8. Dong Y Liu X Tang M Huo H Chen D Wu Z An R Fan Y A haptic-feedback virtual reality system to improve the box and block test (BBT) for upper extremity motor function assessment Virtual Reality 2023 27 1199 1219 10.1007/s10055-022-00727-2 Dong Y, Liu X, Tang M, Huo H, Chen D, Wu Z, et al. A haptic-feedback virtual reality system to improve the box and block test (BBT) for upper extremity motor function assessment. Virtual Reality. 2023;27:1199–219. 10.1007/s10055-022-00727-2.
9. Everard G Burton Q van de Sype V Bibentyo TN Auvinet E Edwards MG Extended reality to assess post-stroke manual dexterity: contrasts between the classic box and block test, immersive virtual reality with controllers, with hand-tracking, and mixed-reality tests J Neuroeng Rehabil 2024 21 36 10.1186/s12984-024-01332-x 38491540 PMC10941416 Everard G, Burton Q, van de Sype V, Bibentyo TN, Auvinet E, Edwards MG, et al. Extended reality to assess post-stroke manual dexterity: contrasts between the classic box and block test, immersive virtual reality with controllers, with hand-tracking, and mixed-reality tests. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024;21:36. 10.1186/s12984-024-01332-x. 38491540 10.1186/s12984-024-01332-x PMC10941416
10. Everard G Otmane-Tolba Y Rosselli Z Pellissier T Ajana K Dehem S Concurrent validity of an immersive virtual reality version of the box and block test to assess manual dexterity among patients with stroke J Neuroeng Rehabil 2022 19 7 10.1186/s12984-022-00981-0 35065678 PMC8783988 Everard G, Otmane-Tolba Y, Rosselli Z, Pellissier T, Ajana K, Dehem S, et al. Concurrent validity of an immersive virtual reality version of the box and block test to assess manual dexterity among patients with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19:7. 10.1186/s12984-022-00981-0. 35065678 10.1186/s12984-022-00981-0 PMC8783988
11. Glegg SMN Levac DE Barriers, facilitators and interventions to support virtual reality implementation in rehabilitation: a scoping review PM&R 2018 10 1237 1251. e1 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.004 30503231 PMC6752033 Glegg SMN, Levac DE. Barriers, facilitators and interventions to support virtual reality implementation in rehabilitation: a scoping review. PM&R. 2018;10:1237-1251. e1. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.004. 30503231 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.004 PMC6752033
12. Gracia-Ibáñez V De Los Reyes-Guzmán A Vergara M Jarque-Bou NJ Sancho-Bru J-L Hand dynamics in healthy individuals and spinal cord injury patients during real and virtual box and block test Appl Sci 2025 15 5842 10.3390/app15115842 Gracia-Ibáñez V, De Los Reyes-Guzmán A, Vergara M, Jarque-Bou NJ, Sancho-Bru J-L. Hand dynamics in healthy individuals and spinal cord injury patients during real and virtual box and block test. Appl Sci. 2025;15:5842. 10.3390/app15115842.
13. Juan MC Elexpuru J Dias P Santos BS Amorim P Immersive virtual reality for upper limb rehabilitation: comparing hand and controller interaction Virtual Reality 2023 27 1157 1171 10.1007/s10055-022-00722-7 36475065 PMC9715412 Juan MC, Elexpuru J, Dias P, Santos BS, Amorim P. Immersive virtual reality for upper limb rehabilitation: comparing hand and controller interaction. Virtual Reality. 2023;27:1157–71. 10.1007/s10055-022-00722-7. 36475065 10.1007/s10055-022-00722-7 PMC9715412
14. Kanzler CM Armand T Simovic L Sylvester R Domnik N Eilfort AM Influence of virtual reality and task complexity on digital health metrics assessing upper limb function J Neuroeng Rehabil 2024 21 125 10.1186/s12984-024-01413-x 39068424 PMC11282591 Kanzler CM, Armand T, Simovic L, Sylvester R, Domnik N, Eilfort AM, et al. Influence of virtual reality and task complexity on digital health metrics assessing upper limb function. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024;21:125. 10.1186/s12984-024-01413-x. 39068424 10.1186/s12984-024-01413-x PMC11282591
15. Kim WS Cho S Ku J Kim Y Lee K Hwang HJ Clinical application of virtual reality for upper limb motor rehabilitation in stroke: review of technologies and clinical evidence J Clin Med 2020 9 3369 10.3390/jcm9103369 33096678 PMC7590210 Kim WS, Cho S, Ku J, Kim Y, Lee K, Hwang HJ, et al. Clinical application of virtual reality for upper limb motor rehabilitation in stroke: review of technologies and clinical evidence. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3369. 10.3390/jcm9103369. 33096678 10.3390/jcm9103369 PMC7590210
16. Kouijzer MM Kip H Bouman YH Kelders SM Implementation of virtual reality in healthcare: a scoping review on the implementation process of virtual reality in various healthcare settings Implement Sci Commun 2023 4 67 10.1186/s43058-023-00442-2 37328858 PMC10276472 Kouijzer MM, Kip H, Bouman YH, Kelders SM. Implementation of virtual reality in healthcare: a scoping review on the implementation process of virtual reality in various healthcare settings. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:67. 10.1186/s43058-023-00442-2. 37328858 10.1186/s43058-023-00442-2 PMC10276472
17. Lambercy O, Fluet MC, Lamers I, Kerkhofs L, Feys P, Gassert R. Assessment of upper limb motor function in patients with multiple sclerosis using the Virtual Peg Insertion Test: a pilot study. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). 2013:1–6. 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650494. IEEE. 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650494 24187309
18. Lamers I Timmermans AA Kerkhofs L Severijns D van Wijmeersch B Feys P Self-reported use of the upper limbs related to clinical tests in persons with multiple sclerosis Disabil Rehabiitationl 2013 35 2016 20 10.3109/09638288.2013.771703 23627537 Lamers I, Timmermans AA, Kerkhofs L, Severijns D, van Wijmeersch B, Feys P. Self-reported use of the upper limbs related to clinical tests in persons with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabiitationl. 2013;35:2016–20. 10.3109/09638288.2013.771703 23627537
19. Liang KJ Chen HL Shieh JY Wang TN Measurement properties of the box and block test in children with unilateral cerebral palsy Sci Rep 2021 11 20955 10.1038/s41598-021-00379-3 34697312 PMC8545961 Liang KJ, Chen HL, Shieh JY, Wang TN. Measurement properties of the box and block test in children with unilateral cerebral palsy. Sci Rep. 2021;11:20955. 10.1038/s41598-021-00379-3. 34697312 10.1038/s41598-021-00379-3 PMC8545961
20. Lugo G, Ibarra-Manzano M, Ba F, Cheng I. Virtual reality and hand tracking system as a medical tool to evaluate patients with Parkinson's. Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 2017:405–408. 10.1145/3154862.3154924.
21. Mekbib DB Debeli DK Zhang L Fang S Shao Y Yang W A novel fully immersive virtual reality environment for upper extremity rehabilitation in patients with stroke Ann N Y Acad Sci 2021 1493 75 89 10.1111/nyas.14554 33442915 Mekbib DB, Debeli DK, Zhang L, Fang S, Shao Y, Yang W, et al. A novel fully immersive virtual reality environment for upper extremity rehabilitation in patients with stroke. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021;1493:75–89. 10.1111/nyas.14554. 33442915 10.1111/nyas.14554
22. Menici V Scalise R Fasano A Falotico E Dubbini N Prencipe G Sgandurra G Filogna S Battini R Assessment of postural control in children with movement disorders by means of a new technological tool: a pilot study Bioengineering 2024 11 176 10.3390/bioengineering11020176 38391662 PMC10886107 Menici V, Scalise R, Fasano A, Falotico E, Dubbini N, Prencipe G, et al. Assessment of postural control in children with movement disorders by means of a new technological tool: a pilot study. Bioengineering. 2024;11:176. 10.3390/bioengineering11020176. 38391662 10.3390/bioengineering11020176 PMC10886107
23. Oña ED, Cuesta-Gomez A, Garcia JA, Raffe W, Sánchez-Herrera P, Cano-De-La-Cuerda R, Jardón A. Evaluating a VR-based box and blocks test for automatic assessment of manual dexterity: a preliminary study in Parkinson’s disease. 2019 IEEE 7th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH). 2019:1–6. 10.1109/SeGAH.2019.8882472. IEEE.
24. Oña ED Jardón A Cuesta-Gómez A Sánchez-Herrera-Baeza P Cano-De-La-Cuerda R Balaguer C Validity of a fully-immersive VR-based version of the box and blocks test for upper limb function assessment in Parkinson’s disease Sensors 2020 20 2773 10.3390/s20102773 32414177 PMC7285781 Oña ED, Jardón A, Cuesta-Gómez A, Sánchez-Herrera-Baeza P, Cano-De-La-Cuerda R, Balaguer C. Validity of a fully-immersive VR-based version of the box and blocks test for upper limb function assessment in Parkinson’s disease. Sensors. 2020;20:2773. 10.3390/s20102773. 32414177 10.3390/s20102773 PMC7285781
25. PAVãO SL Silva FP Dusing SC Rocha NA Clinical tools designed to assess motor abilities in children with cerebral palsy Dev Neurorehabil 2017 20 149 59 10.3109/17518423.2016.1150359 27019351 PAVãO SL, Silva FP, Dusing SC, Rocha NA. Clinical tools designed to assess motor abilities in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Neurorehabil. 2017;20:149–59. 10.3109/17518423.2016.1150359. 27019351 10.3109/17518423.2016.1150359
26. Pérez-Nombela S Merino-Andrés J Gómez-Soriano J Álvarez-Rodríguez M Ceruelo-Abajo S López-Muñoz P Is it feasible to apply a virtual box and block test in children with unilateral cerebral palsy?: a pilot study J Clin Med 2025 14 391 10.3390/jcm14020391 39860397 PMC11765697 Pérez-Nombela S, Merino-Andrés J, Gómez-Soriano J, Álvarez-Rodríguez M, Ceruelo-Abajo S, López-Muñoz P, et al. Is it feasible to apply a virtual box and block test in children with unilateral cerebral palsy?: a pilot study. J Clin Med. 2025;14:391. 10.3390/jcm14020391. 39860397 10.3390/jcm14020391 PMC11765697
27. Peters MD Godfrey CM Khalil H Mcinerney P Parker D Soares CB Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015 13 141 6 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 26134548 Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, Mcinerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6. 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. 26134548 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
28. Pham MT RAJIć A Greig JD Sargeant JM Papadopoulos A Mcewen SA A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency Res Synth Methods 2014 5 371 85 10.1002/jrsm.1123 26052958 PMC4491356 Pham MT, RAJIć A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, Mcewen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85. 10.1002/jrsm.1123. 26052958 10.1002/jrsm.1123 PMC4491356
29. Phelan I Carrion-Plaza A Furness PJ Dimitri P Home-based immersive virtual reality physical rehabilitation in paediatric patients for upper limb motor impairment: a feasibility study Virtual Reality 2023 27 3505 3520 10.1007/s10055-023-00747-6 PMC9840166 36686613 Phelan I, Carrion-Plaza A, Furness PJ, Dimitri P. Home-based immersive virtual reality physical rehabilitation in paediatric patients for upper limb motor impairment: a feasibility study. Virtual Reality. 2023;27:3505–20. 10.1007/s10055-023-00747-6. 10.1007/s10055-023-00747-6 PMC9840166 36686613
30. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dietz V. Neurorehabilitation technology. Springer. 2016. 10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7..
31. Reoli R Cherry-Allen K Therrien A Keller J Leech K Whitt AL Bastian A Can the ARAT be used to measure arm function in people with cerebellar ataxia? Phys Ther 2021 10.1093/ptj/pzaa203 33336704 PMC7899061 Reoli R, Cherry-Allen K, Therrien A, Keller J, Leech K, Whitt AL, et al. Can the ARAT be used to measure arm function in people with cerebellar ataxia? Phys Ther. 2021. 10.1093/ptj/pzaa203. 33336704 10.1093/ptj/pzaa203 PMC7899061
32. Rosselli Z Somville M Ducoffre E Arnould C Saussez G Bleyenheuft Y Development and validation of a virtual version of the box and block test to assess manual dexterity at home for adults with stroke and children with cerebral palsy Bioengineering 2025 12 662 10.3390/bioengineering12060662 40564478 PMC12189916 Rosselli Z, Somville M, Ducoffre E, Arnould C, Saussez G, Bleyenheuft Y. Development and validation of a virtual version of the box and block test to assess manual dexterity at home for adults with stroke and children with cerebral palsy. Bioengineering. 2025;12:662. 10.3390/bioengineering12060662. 40564478 10.3390/bioengineering12060662 PMC12189916
33. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, Mcintosh E. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374. 10.1136/bmj.n2061. 10.1136/bmj.n2061 PMC8482308 34593508
34. Slobounov S Slobounov E Newell K Application of virtual reality graphics in assessment of concussion Cyberpsychol Behav 2006 9 188 191 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.188 16640477 Slobounov S, Slobounov E, Newell K. Application of virtual reality graphics in assessment of concussion. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2006;9:188–91. 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.188. 16640477 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.188
35. Sylcott B Lin CC Williams K Hinderaker M Investigating the use of virtual reality headsets for postural control assessment: instrument validation study JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2021 8 e24950 10.2196/24950 34779789 PMC8663691 Sylcott B, Lin CC, Williams K, Hinderaker M. Investigating the use of virtual reality headsets for postural control assessment: instrument validation study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;8:e24950. 10.2196/24950. 34779789 10.2196/24950 PMC8663691
36. Temporiti F Mandaresu S Calcagno A Coelli S Bianchi AM Gatti R Kinematic evaluation and reliability assessment of the nine hole peg test for manual dexterity J Hand Ther 2023 36 560 7 10.1016/j.jht.2022.01.007 35232627 Temporiti F, Mandaresu S, Calcagno A, Coelli S, Bianchi AM, Gatti R, et al. Kinematic evaluation and reliability assessment of the nine hole peg test for manual dexterity. J Hand Ther. 2023;36:560–7. 10.1016/j.jht.2022.01.007. 35232627 10.1016/j.jht.2022.01.007
37. Thomasson M Perez-Marcos D Crottaz-Herbette S Brenet F Saj A Bernati T An immersive virtual reality tool for assessing left and right unilateral spatial neglect J Neuropsychol 2023 18 349 76 10.1111/jnp.12361 38225801 Thomasson M, Perez-Marcos D, Crottaz-Herbette S, Brenet F, Saj A, Bernati T, et al. An immersive virtual reality tool for assessing left and right unilateral spatial neglect. J Neuropsychol. 2023;18:349–76. 10.1111/jnp.12361. 10.1111/jnp.12361 38225801
38. Tobler-Ammann BC De Bruin ED Fluet M-C Lambercy O De Bie RA Knols RH Concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the virtual peg insertion test to quantify upper limb function in patients with chronic stroke J Neuroeng Rehabil 2016 13 8 10.1186/s12984-016-0116-y 26801395 PMC4724098 Tobler-Ammann BC, De Bruin ED, Fluet M-C, Lambercy O, De Bie RA, Knols RH. Concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the virtual peg insertion test to quantify upper limb function in patients with chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:8. 10.1186/s12984-016-0116-y. 26801395 10.1186/s12984-016-0116-y PMC4724098
39. Tricco AC, L. E., Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, Mcgowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Munn Z, Straus SE. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169. 10.7326/M18-0850. 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033
40. Veruggio G Guidelines for Upper Limb Rehabilitation Cerebral palsy: a practical guide for rehabilitation professionals 2022 Springer Veruggio G. Guidelines for Upper Limb Rehabilitation. In: Cerebral palsy: a practical guide for rehabilitation professionals. Springer; 2022. 10.1007/978-3-030-85619-9_8.
41. Vox JP Weber A Wolf KI Izdebski K Schüler T König P Wallhoff F Friemert D An evaluation of motion trackers with virtual reality sensor technology in comparison to a marker-based motion capture system based on joint angles for ergonomic risk assessment Sensors (Basel) 2021 21 3145 10.3390/s21093145 34062827 PMC8124554 Vox JP, Weber A, Wolf KI, Izdebski K, Schüler T, König P, et al. An evaluation of motion trackers with virtual reality sensor technology in comparison to a marker-based motion capture system based on joint angles for ergonomic risk assessment. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21:3145. 10.3390/s21093145. 34062827 10.3390/s21093145 PMC8124554