Journal
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -Publisher
MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072590
Keywords
art therapy; neuroaesthetics; aesthetics; stroke; rehabilitation; Michelangelo effect; immersive virtual reality
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In neurorehabilitation, art therapy has been found to effectively reduce psychological disorders and improve physical and cognitive abilities. Neuroaesthetical studies have shown that viewing art can stimulate brain activity and motor networks. By combining contemplation and performance, a virtual reality system was developed to allow patients to paint famous artistic paintings. The study aimed to test the rehabilitative efficacy of the system.
In neurorehabilitation, some studies reported the effective use of art therapy for reducing psychological disorders and for enhancing physical functions and cognitive abilities. Neuroaesthetical studies showed that seeing an art masterpiece can spontaneously elicit a widespread brain arousal, also involving motor networks. To combine contemplative and performative benefits of art therapy protocols, we have developed an immersive virtual reality system, giving subjects the illusion that they are able to paint a copy of famous artistic paintings. We previously observed that during this virtual task, subjects perceived less fatigue and performed more accurate movements than when they were asked to color the virtual canvas. We named this upshot the Michelangelo effect. The aim of this study was to test the rehabilitative efficacy of our system. Ten patients with stroke in the subacute phase were enrolled and trained for one month with virtual art therapy (VAT) and physiotherapy. Their data were compared with those of ten patients matched for pathology, age and clinical parameters, trained only with conventional therapy for the same amount of time. The VAT group showed a significantly higher improvements in the Barthel Index score, a measure of independency in activities of daily living (66 +/- 33% vs. 31 +/- 28%, p = 0.021), and in pinching strength (66 +/- 39% vs. 18 +/- 33%, p = 0.008), with respect to the group treated with conventional rehabilitation.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available