MultiSensy
Immersive virtual reality with synchronous neurostimulation for upper-limb recovery after stroke: a randomized feasibility trial
Clinical Question
In patients with chronic stroke, does immersive VR combined with synchronous transcutaneous sensory neurostimulation (MultiSensy) improve upper-limb motor function and body self-representation more than conventional rehabilitation?
Study Overview
Objective
To evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and assessment capabilities of MultiSensy — a multimodal platform integrating immersive virtual reality with synchronous transcutaneous sensory neurostimulation — for upper-limb sensorimotor recovery in chronic stroke.
Study Summary
- MultiSensy produced significantly greater upper-limb motor improvement than conventional rehabilitation: FMA-UE 13.17 ± 1.30 vs 7.54 ± 1.48 (P = 0.01)
- ARAT gains also favored MultiSensy: 8.25 ± 1.96 vs 2.44 ± 1.08 (P = 0.029)
- MultiSensy improved body self-representation and hand tactile acuity, and enabled continuous kinematic performance monitoring that tracked rehabilitation progress
Intervention
MultiSensy platform: fully immersive virtual reality combined with synchronous transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) delivering targeted sensory feedback to the affected upper limb during rehabilitation training; evaluated within a 33-day feasibility study.
Patients per Arm
not reported
Bottom Line
In this randomized feasibility trial in chronic stroke, MultiSensy — immersive VR with synchronous TENS — produced significantly greater gains in FMA-UE and ARAT than conventional rehabilitation, and also improved body self-representation and tactile acuity, supporting progression to larger trials and potentially home-based sensorimotor rehabilitation.
Major Points
- MultiSensy integrates fully immersive virtual reality with synchronous transcutaneous sensory neurostimulation (TENS) to deliver task-contingent multisensory feedback during upper-limb rehabilitation.
- In a 33-day randomized feasibility study (n=25) in chronic stroke (>3 months), MultiSensy outperformed conventional rehabilitation on both FMA-UE (13.17 ± 1.30 vs 7.54 ± 1.48; P = 0.01) and ARAT (8.25 ± 1.96 vs 2.44 ± 1.08; P = 0.029); a separate pilot cohort (n=9) preceded the randomized between-arm comparison.
- MultiSensy also improved body self-representation (Body Landmark Test, a primary endpoint) and hand tactile acuity, targeting the somatosensory-encoded body representation implicated in chronic post-stroke sensorimotor conflict.
- The platform enabled continuous kinematic data capture, yielding objective performance markers that tracked rehabilitation progress.
- Findings support larger trials and raise the possibility of treating more patients with fewer physiotherapist visits or even home-based sensorimotor rehabilitation.
Design
Study Type: Combined pilot study and randomized, controlled feasibility trial
Randomization: 1
Blinding: not reported
Allocation: not reported
Enrollment Period: not reported
Follow-up Duration: not reported
Countries:
Sample Size: 34
Analysis: not reported
Power Calculation: not reported
Registration: NCT06400823
Inclusion Criteria
- Chronic phase of stroke (>3 months after stroke)
Arms
| Field | MultiSensy (immersive VR + synchronous TENS) | Control |
|---|---|---|
| N | ||
| Intervention | Multimodal rehabilitation using the MultiSensy platform: fully immersive virtual reality with synchronous transcutaneous sensory neurostimulation providing task-contingent tactile feedback to the affected upper limb. | Conventional upper-limb rehabilitation therapy. |
| Duration | not reported (evaluated within a 33-day feasibility study) | not reported (evaluated within a 33-day feasibility study) |
Outcomes
| Outcome | Type | Control | Intervention | HR / OR / RR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change in upper-limb motor function assessed by Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and self-body representation assessed by the Body Landmark Test. | Primary | FMA-UE 7.54 ± 1.48; ARAT 2.44 ± 1.08 | FMA-UE 13.17 ± 1.30; ARAT 8.25 ± 1.96 | Greater improvement with MultiSensy on both FMA-UE and ARAT | FMA-UE P = 0.01; ARAT P = 0.029 |
| Sensory evaluation — hand tactile acuity | Secondary | Improved with MultiSensy versus conventional rehabilitation (quantitative values not reported in provided text) | |||
| Functional independence evaluation | Secondary | not reported | |||
| Objective kinematic performance markers derived from continuous kinematic data | Secondary | Tracked rehabilitation progress over the intervention | |||
Criticisms
- Small feasibility sample (total n=34; randomized feasibility cohort n=25) limits generalizability and precision of effect estimates.
- Short intervention window (33 days) with no long-term follow-up reported in the provided text.
- Blinding, allocation concealment, and per-arm sample sizes are not specified in the provided text.
- Single primary comparison against 'conventional rehabilitation' without a sham-VR or sham-TENS control limits attribution of benefit to the specific multisensory integration.
Funding
not reported
Based on: MultiSensy (Nature Medicine, 2026)
Authors: not reported
Citation: Nature Medicine | Volume 32 | August 2026 | 2790–2802
Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.