Supervised Exposure to XR Device–Task Configurations in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Descriptive Self-Report Acceptability Pilot Study

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Extended reality (XR) platforms may support cognitive and functional interventions in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but their clinical feasibility depends on perceived usability, comfort, and user acceptance. This exploratory pilot study examined subjective acceptability of three integrated XR device–task configurations: a non-immersive Touch TV configuration, a semi-immersive Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) configuration, and a fully immersive head-mounted display (HMD) configuration. The study included 21 individuals with MCI and 10 cognitively healthy controls. Participants experienced all three device–task configurations in randomized order and completed the Digital Immersion Satisfaction Questionnaire (Qu.G.I.D.), an ad hoc instrument assessing digital literacy, perceived ease of use, preference, and willingness to use the configurations for future applications. Perceived ease of use scores were generally high and did not differ significantly between groups. Repeated-measures exploratory analyses showed no statistically robust configuration effect for perceived ease of use or preference scores. CAVE was numerically the most frequently selected device–task configuration for future applications, but this difference was not statistically significant when non-mutually exclusive selections were analyzed using Cochran’s Q. Digital literacy was not positively associated with Touch TV preference. Because device type, level of immersion, interaction modality, and task content were not experimentally separable, these findings cannot determine whether ratings reflected hardware characteristics or the specific activities performed. The results should therefore be interpreted as preliminary descriptive self-report acceptability and acceptability data, not as evidence of comparative device–task configurations effectiveness. Larger, balanced, counterbalanced studies using validated usability scales, objective performance metrics, interaction-quality measures, and cybersickness assessment are required before hypotheses for future controlled studies can be formulated.

This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit: