Table 1.
Participant Characteristics.
Fig 1.
ARm-Strong refers to the AR intervention.
Fig 2.
Orientation of the bypass prosthesis on a participant.
[a] Anterior view; [b] Posterior view.
Fig 3.
Performance of the card-turning task of the JHFT using a bypass prosthesis.
A participant is wearing the bypass prosthesis oriented on their left arm. They are instructed to complete a seven-task functional assessment using the prosthesis only. The card-turning task asks that individuals turn five, 5x7 index cards over on a table in order from right to left. The time to successfully complete the task is recorded.
Fig 4.
ARm-Strong prosthetic training game.
[a] Participant wearing the bypass prosthesis and Microsoft HoloLens2 headset to play the AR training game, ARm-Strong; [b] ARm-Strong game setup when launching the app. Participants stack the cups on the table to match the configuration depicted in the pyramid scheme; [c] A Participant grasping a virtual blue cup using the bypass device.
Fig 5.
Mean ± SD of average total JHFT times assessed pre- and post-intervention in experimental (AR_INT) and control (CON) groups.
Both groups significantly improved in their time to complete the JHFT from pre- to post- assessment. The AR_INT group was significantly faster at completing the JHFT compared to the CON group, at both assessment time points. Faster time [in seconds] indicates better performance. *Significant main effect of time, p < 0.05. **Significant main effect of groups, p < 0.05.
Fig 6.
Correlation between change in JHFT and change in ARm-Strong performance.
A change in ARm-Strong performance is moderately correlated with a change in JHFT performance. Participants who completed the ARm-Strong game faster also exhibited a more efficient time to complete the functional assessment, the JHFT.
Table 2.
Summary of differences in engagement, engrossment, and total immersion for the ARI questionnaire.
Fig 7.
Average rating for each subcategory of the ARI questionnaire.
The 21-item ARI questionnaire has questions that pertain to one of three sub-categories: engagement, engrossment and immersion. Engagement is seen as the lowest level of interest in an experience, whereas immersion is the highest level of captivation an individual can attain. Individuals who completed AR training rated their level of agreement for each question. The average ratings for each sub-category were deciphered, indicating that users felt similarly engaged and engrossed in the AR training, and did not feel as immersed. *Significant difference p < 0.05.