Reports on cognitive load did not differ across visualization technologies. Here, we present results from the analysis of questionnaires to evaluate whether the visualization technology impacted users’ cognitive load, motivation, technology usability, and embodiment. In a previous analysis, we reported improved movement quality when movements were visualized with IVR than with a 2D screen. As a first step towards potential clinical implementation, we ran an experiment with 20 healthy participants who simultaneously performed a 3D motor reaching and a cognitive counting task using: (1) (immersive) VR (IVR) HMD, (2) augmented reality (AR) HMD, and (3) computer screen (2D screen). The goal of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of more immersive technologies using head-mounted displays (HMDs). These 2D screens might further reduce the learning outcomes if they limit users’ motivation and embodiment, factors previously associated with better motor performance. The reduced depth cues and the visuospatial transformation from the movements performed in a three-dimensional space to their two-dimensional indirect visualization on the 2D screen may add cognitive load, reducing VR usability, especially in users suffering from cognitive impairments. However, in current VR-based motor training, movements of the users performed in a three-dimensional space are usually visualized on computer screens, televisions, or projection systems, which lack depth cues (2D screen), and thus, display information using only monocular depth cues. Virtual reality (VR) is a promising tool to promote motor (re)learning in healthy users and brain-injured patients.

Accupix mybud display cleanup