Skip to main content

Efficacy of virtual reality-based training programs and games on the improvement of cognitive disorders in patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis



Cognitive impairments present challenges for patients, impacting memory, attention, and problem-solving abilities. Virtual reality (VR) offers innovative ways to enhance cognitive function and well-being. This study explores the effects of VR-based training programs and games on improving cognitive disorders.


PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched until May 20, 2023. Two researchers selected and extracted data based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, resolving disagreements through consultation with two other authors. Inclusion criteria required studies of individuals with any cognitive disorder engaged in at least one VR-based training session, reporting cognitive impairment data via scales like the MMSE. Only English-published RCTs were considered, while exclusion criteria included materials not primarily focused on the intersection of VR and cognitive disorders. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the MMAT tool. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test. The collected data were utilized to calculate the standardized mean differences (Hedges’s g) between the treatment and control groups. The heterogeneity variance was estimated using the Q test and I2 statistic. The analysis was conducted using Stata version 17.0.


Ten studies were included in the analysis out of a total of 3,157 retrieved articles. VR had a statistically significant improvement in cognitive impairments among patients (Hedges’s g = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.68; p_value = 0.05). games (Hedges’s g = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.39; p_value = 0.20) had a more significant impact on cognitive impairment improvement compared to cognitive training programs (Hedges’s g = 0.29, 95% CI: -0.11, 0.69; p_value = 0.24). The type of VR intervention was a significant moderator of the heterogeneity between studies.


VR-based interventions have demonstrated promise in enhancing cognitive function and addressing cognitive impairment, highlighting their potential as valuable tools in improving care for individuals with cognitive disorders. The findings underscore the relevance of incorporating virtual reality into therapeutic approaches for cognitive disorders.

Peer Review reports


Cognitive disorders (CDs), also known as neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), can directly or indirectly interfere with the functioning of the cognitive-neural and perceptual systems, either permanently or transiently [1, 2]. These disorders lead to confusion in individuals’ self-awareness and their perception of the world, resulting in various behavioral abnormalities [3]. Also, these disorders severely affect the personal and social life of the patient and reduce their quality of life [3, 4]. Some of the common cognitive disorders are Alzheimer’s disease, forgetfulness, dementia, developmental disorders, movement skills disorders, and cognitive impairment caused by drug use [5, 6].

Despite the different treatment methods that exist for patients with CD, according to the type of disease, unfortunately, there is no definitive treatment to prevent brain damage caused by CD [7]. However, treatments can be used to help people with CD maintain their mental abilities and skills, mitigate the effects of the disease, and perform their jobs more effectively and without difficulties [8, 9]. Currently, due to the prevalence of brain injuries caused by CD and the challenges associated with drug treatments, interest in using non-drug treatments to prevent or reduce the risk of diseases has increased [10, 11]. One of the non-pharmacological treatments is the use of virtual reality (VR) technology, which is currently employed in the control and treatment of various diseases [12]. VR technology separates the individual from external sensory inputs of the surrounding environment. Then, it immerses them in a simulated world different from their current environment and helps by distracting them within that virtual and simulated environment [13]. VR technology can manifest in VR-based education programs and VR-based games. A VR education program integrates VR technology into learning, creating immersive experiences for participants [14]. Utilizing computer-generated simulations, it enhances understanding through realistic scenarios and encourages active participation in the learning process [14, 15]. VR-based games also involve the use of virtual reality technology to create interactive and immersive gaming experience [16]. In these games, players are fully immersed in a computer-generated environment that responds to their actions in real-time [17]. Education programs leverage VR technology to create immersive learning experiences, utilizing computer-generated simulations to deepen understanding and encourage active participation in educational content [15]. In contrast, VR-based games use VR to provide users with engaging and entertaining experiences, prioritizing narrative, gameplay, and overall enjoyment [18].

Available evidence shows that VR technology could be beneficial in controlling, managing, and treating CD [19,20,21].VR-based interventions are vital for patients with cognitive impairment due to their immersive and interactive nature, potentially enhancing cognitive functions [22]. This dynamic and personalized therapy allows for targeted interventions based on individual needs [23]. VR has shown promise in improving cognitive skills, memory, and overall cognitive function in various conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia [24]. Foloppe et al. [25], showed the effects of VR-based training in increasing the functional independence of Alzheimer’s patients during cooking activities. This enables Alzheimer’s patients to learn cooking again through the utilization of VR techniques. In general, it was shown in this study that the improvement of work performance will remain constant over time for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In a clinical trial study on Alzheimer’s patients, Serino et al. [26], showed that subjects in the intervention group experienced a significant improvement in long-term memory recall after undergoing VR-based training. The findings of this study also showed that training based on VR had a significant effect on the executive performance of cognitively healthy elderly people. Rosa et al. [27], showed that VR-based game interventions allow faster and more effective improvement of several cognitive abilities for patients with cognitive disorders than traditional interventions. Also, Zhu et al. [28], showed in their study that virtual reality as a non-pharmacological treatment can improve cognitive and motor performance in elderly people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review or meta-analytic study has been conducted to investigate the effect of educational programs and games based on VR on the improvement of cognitive disorders. Only in some studies, such as Zhang et al.‘s meta-analysis [29], the effect of VR-based treatments on cognition and mental health of stroke patients has been shown. In another meta-analysis study, Yan et al. [30], examined the effects of VR combined with cognitive and physical interventions on cognitive performance in the elderly with mild cognitive impairment. In a review study and meta-analysis, Dan Yua et al. [31] also investigated the effect of virtual reality on executive function in the elderly with mild cognitive impairment. None of these studies focused on all cognitive disorders in general, and only on a specific population such as patients with stroke or the elderly with CD. Furthermore, none of these studies have specifically investigated and analyzed the effect of games and programs based on VR separately. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of games and educational programs based on VR on the improvement of cognitive disorders.


Study design

The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Ethical approval was deemed unnecessary for its completion (Appendix A).

Data sources and search strategy

A comprehensive search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering publications in English from their inception up until May 20, 2023. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science are chosen for health-related investigations due to their extensive scope, multidisciplinary character, and reliable indexing of academic publications [32, 33]. PubMed focuses on biomedical and life sciences research, Web of Science is renowned for its meticulous journal curation and citation analysis [33], and Scopus provides comprehensive coverage of scientific literature, spanning both medical and non-clinical sciences. These databases serve as valuable resources for interdisciplinary studies, offering researchers access to a diverse and credible array of scholarly materials. This diverse selection forms a robust foundation for conducting health-related research [32].

The search strategy was collaboratively developed by two researchers, KHN, and FD. After its development, the strategy was then reviewed and approved by KB and HSH. Keywords and search strategies are included:

  • ((“virtual reality” OR “virtual reality training " OR " game” OR “gaming” OR “video games” OR “augmented reality”) AND (“cognitive impairment” OR “cognitive disorder” OR “memory disorder” OR “cognitive decline” OR “memory impairment” OR “cognitive dysfunction”))

Eligibility criteria

Some specific inclusion criteria were established to ensure the relevance and uniformity of the data. Firstly, eligible studies had to encompass individuals with any cognitive disorder, ensuring a focus on the target population. Secondly, participants in each study were required to have engaged in at least one VR-based training session, ensuring familiarity with the technology. Thirdly, the reported results had to contain data on cognitive impairment, assessed through scales like the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), thereby providing a consistent measure of cognitive function. Fourthly, to maintain consistency in language and accessibility, only studies published in the English language were considered. Lastly, only randomized clinical trial (RCT) studies were included. Hernandez et al. [34], pointed out that meta-analyses are commonly classified into two types: traditional and nontraditional. Traditional meta-analyses evaluate the effects of one intervention compared to another (e.g., investigational intervention, usual practice, placebo) by synthesizing aggregated data from prior studies. They combine various study types, including RCTs, observational studies (e.g., cohort studies, case-control studies), diagnostic studies, and prognostic studies. Meta-analyses specifically focused on RCTs are considered the optimal approach for summarizing the positive and adverse effects of interventions [34].

The exclusion criteria encompassed articles that did not primarily focus on the intersection of virtual reality and cognitive disorders. Additionally, materials such as books, book chapters, letters to the editor, and conference abstracts were excluded from the analysis.

Study selection

Three authors (KHM, KB, and FD) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of studies obtained from the database searches. They assessed each study against two criteria: (1) whether the study utilized virtual reality technology, and (2) whether the participants were described as individuals diagnosed with any cognitive impairments.

Next, the same three authors conducted a full-text review of the identified studies, evaluating them against the complete inclusion criteria (as specified in the eligibility criteria). In case of any disagreements regarding the inclusion of studies, a fourth reviewer (HSH) was consulted to reach a consensus.

Data collection and extraction process

To ensure accurate and systematic data extraction, the research team devised a data extraction form to code the demographic, methodological, and outcome variables obtained from each study. The responsibility of extracting the data was carried out independently by KHM and FD. The final dataset, which was to be included in the analysis, was confirmed by both KB and HSH to ensure its accuracy and reliability.

A data extraction form was employed to extract relevant data from the primary studies. This form facilitated the systematic collection of information required for the analysis. The data extraction form encompassed various fields, including the country, population diagnosis, VR equipment, sample size (male/female), mean age, intervention in treatment group, intervention in control group, duration of the session and the follow-up period (Table 1), and mean and standard deviation (SD) of MMSE for experimental and control groups (Fig. 2). In instances where disagreements arose regarding the extracted information, the research team members convened to deliberate and reach a final decision. The extracted information was entered and organized in an Excel spreadsheet.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies to assess the effect of virtual reality-based training programs and games on the improvement of cognitive disorders in patients

Risk of bias assessment

KHM and FD conducted a critical assessment of the data independently, utilizing the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, version 2018: Hong et al., 2018). The MMAT serves as a crucial assessment instrument tailored for systematic mixed studies reviews, which encompass a range of study types, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. The MMAT is designed to evaluate the methodological quality across five categories of studies, including qualitative research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies [35]. In cases where there were disagreements between the two authors, KB and HSH intervened to mediate discussions and reach a consensus. The studies were evaluated based on the MMAT criteria corresponding to their respective categories. The most recent version of MMAT presents a descriptive quality appraisal approach rather than using numerical scores. The response options for all study categories include “yes,” “no,” and “can’t tell.” If a study received a “can’t tell” response, it indicates that there was insufficient information reported to provide a definitive “yes” or “no” answer. In such cases, further investigation through companion studies or direct communication with the study authors may be necessary [36].

Articles that fulfilled all five quality criteria were classified as high-quality, earning a full rating of five stars or 100% quality. Additionally, articles meeting four criteria were considered to have 80% quality, those with three stars had 60% quality, two stars indicated 40% quality, and one star denoted 20% quality. If a study did not satisfy any of the quality criteria, it received no stars [37].

Data synthesis and analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted when several studies reported the effects of using VR on the improvement of cognitive disorders. The standardized mean differences represented by Hedges’s g to compare the treatment and control groups were calculated from the collected data. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger’s test. The statistical heterogeneity was estimated through the use of the Q test and incoherence index (I2). Moreover, Meta-regression was employed to assess the source of the heterogeneity among included the studies. The effect size calculation involved the utilization of a random effects model for 95% CI. The statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 17.0 software.


Study selection

A comprehensive search initially yielded a total of 3157 articles. Following the removal of duplicates, a set of 2556 studies remained. Each of these studies underwent a rigorous and meticulous review, during which inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully applied. The assessment process involved a thorough examination of the methodologies, results, and relevance to the research focus.

After this meticulous screening, a total of 10 articles emerged as meeting the predefined criteria for inclusion in the study. The details of this selection process are visually represented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart of screened and included studies to assess the effect of virtual reality-based training programs and games on the improvement of cognitive disorders in patients

Study characteristics

Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the selected studies. As this table shows, most of the studies were conducted in Korea (n = 5, 50%) [38,39,40,41,42], and all the included studies were related to elderly people with cognitive disorders. The largest sample size was associated with the study of Thapa et al. [41].

Quality assessment

Appendix B displays the results of the quality evaluation conducted on the studies using the MMAT tool

The effect size of included studies

We found that VR-based interventions including games and training programs have a positive effect on cognitive impairment (Hedges’s g = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.68; p_value = 0.05). The highest and lowest effect sizes were related to the study of Tarnanas [44] and Oliveira [45], respectively (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of the studies

Based on Cohen’s d standardized effect size, this effect size is medium [48]. Also, games (Hedges’s g = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.92, p_value:0.20) have been demonstrated to improve cognitive disorders more effectively than cognitive training programs (Hedges’s g = 0.15, 95% CI: -0.17, 0.48, p_value:0.24) (Fig. 2).

Publication bias

The funnel plot (Fig. 3) illustrates the absence of publication bias in the studies. Moreover, the output of Egger’s test was not significant. This shows there is no publication bias (p_value = 0.86).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Funnel plot

Heterogeneity among included studies

Based on the results of the Q test and a significance level of P < 0.001, it can be concluded that the assumption of homogeneity of the studies is rejected with an error rate of less than 1%. This confirms the significance of the Q index, indicating heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. The value of I2 value is also 47.24%, indicating a moderate level of heterogeneity [49].

Meta-regression analysis

The effect sizes obtained from the random effects model were not found to be statistically significant for gender, age, sample size, duration of intervention, and type of cognitive disorders (P > 0.05) (Table 2). This means that these variables did not have a great impact on the results of studies related to the improvement of cognitive disorders through virtual reality. However, the effect size obtained from the random effects model for the type of VR intervention was statistically significant (P = 0.047). Therefore, this variable had an impact on the heterogeneity of the included studies (Table 2).

Table 2 Effect sizes for separate meta-analyses on moderator variables


In this study, the effect of VR-based training programs and games on the improvement of cognitive disorders in patients was investigated. Our research revealed that the implementation of virtual reality had a notable and statistically significant impact on enhancing cognitive impairments in patients. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that games were more effective in improving cognitive impairment compared to cognitive training programs.

As stated in our study’s findings, the utilization of virtual reality demonstrated a noteworthy and significant influence in improving cognitive disorders among patients. Different studies [50,51,52,53,54] have also demonstrated that VR-based games and educational programs can enhance the performance of individuals with cognitive disorders. Thapa et al. [55], conducted a study indicating that VR-based educational programs improved cognitive and physical performance in patients with mild cognitive impairments. Similarly, Yang et al.‘s study [56] revealed the potential benefits of virtual reality training for enhancing cognitive performance in brain tumor patients. These studies collectively highlight the potential of VR technology to encourage better treatment adherence among both healthcare providers and patients [57]. By immersing patients in virtual training scenarios and equipping them with innovative tools, VR facilitates a more immersive and engaging learning experience. This can contribute to a deeper understanding of treatment protocols and potentially improve patients’ adherence to treatment processes [58]. Manera et al. [59], concluded in their research that utilizing VR-based training represents an intriguing approach for enhancing adherence to cognitive training among elderly individuals with cognitive impairment. In their study, Then et al. [60], also illustrated that virtual rehabilitation conducted remotely enhances patient motivation, thereby improving therapy adherence. As we navigate the evolving landscape of healthcare, the integration of VR technology holds considerable promise for fostering enhanced treatment adherence and improving outcomes for both healthcare providers and patients. Moreover, Manera et al. [59], further demonstrated that the utilization of VR-based technologies provides patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) a sense of safety and satisfaction, reduces fatigue, anxiety, and stress in comparison to alternative educational methods (such as pen and paper-based approaches). Additional research [61, 62] has also highlighted the positive impact of engaging patients through VR-based stimuli or external factors, leading to enhancements in functional and mental abilities, as well as overall quality of life.

The question now arises: why is it that virtual reality technologies can improve cognitive disorders? Some reasons have mentioned how VR technologies could improve CD. Rose et al. [63], highlighted that VR offers an artificial, interactive environment closely mimicking and enhancing reality. VR technologies also offer a heightened degree of resemblance between the educational or gaming environment and the real world. These factors promote stronger patient adherence to their treatment. Additionally, this technology holds greater potential for transferring to daily activities among patients with cognitive impairment. By regulating emotions and providing immediate, precise performance feedback, VR proves to be a favorable method in comparison to alternative approaches. As highlighted by Miedany et al. [64], the engagement of patients in immersive and interactive virtual environments through VR effectively stimulates cognitive processes, fostering improvements that could have significant implications for medical intervention and patient care. In another study [65], it has been noted that virtual reality enables individuals with cognitive impairments, the elderly, and those with Alzheimer’s disease to more readily and securely experience sensory stimuli within a virtual simulation environment, in an easier and simpler manner. This very same virtual environment enhances the comprehension and acquisition of functional learning and function transfer. In connection with this assertion, it should be noted that several studies [15,16,17] have demonstrated how the virtual environment stimulates and activates brain metabolism, increases cerebral blood flow, facilitates the movement and release of neurotransmitters, and supports various cortical functions. It holds the potential to reactivate and promote brain healing.

The findings of our study revealed that VR-based games have been more effective in improving cognitive disorders compared to VR-based educational programs. Liu et al.‘s study [66] demonstrated significant improvements in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail-Making Test-A (TMT-A), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Digital Span Test (DST), Verbal Fluency Test (VFT), and Modified Barthel Index (MBI) following the use of VR-based puzzle games by stroke patients. Yang-Kun et al. [67], demonstrated that VR-based games enhance children’s cognitive performance, including attention, critical thinking, abstract reasoning, and information processing. Yanguas et al.‘s study [68] similarly exhibited cognitive function improvement through the utilization of VR-based games. VR-based games offer users a captivating experience by incorporating features such as interactive screens, touch controllers, motion sensors, voice notifications, physical vibrations, omnidirectional vision, and engaging gameplay elements like collecting points and defending against enemies. These aspects contribute to the attraction, sense of competition, and excitement that users derive from these games [69,70,71]. It is for this reason that these games have a more significant impact than training based on virtual reality. For example, the feeling of being in places such as bicycle or ski tracks, football fields, or engaging in games such as adventure games and duels, which react extremely quickly, brings a special appeal to users who have Cognitive disorders [72]. Moreover, in some adventure-style games, users manage the game with their own body movements and discover the mystery inside, rather than typing commands or clicking in the game [73]. This itself is very attractive to the user and captivates their attention.

Finally, what is crucial for us to understand is that the design of virtual reality-based training programs and games can significantly influence users’ engagement. Moulaei et al.‘s [18] investigation delves into the scoping review, shedding light on identifying the parameters necessary to design a successful rehabilitation game and the outcomes of using these games. Their findings emphasize the importance of considering specific design elements, such as the immersive nature of virtual reality environments, in achieving positive outcomes. This studies collectively underscore the importance of thoughtful design in virtual reality-based programs and games for optimizing their impact in patients. The synthesis of evidence from various sources informs our understanding of how specific design features contribute to the overall efficacy of virtual reality interventions in the context of cognitive disorders. Additionally, Samarasinghe, et al.‘s research [74], focused on the design aspects of virtual reality games for people with Alzheimer, highlights the significance of tailoring interventions to address the unique cognitive needs of patients. These diverse perspectives collectively reinforce the pivotal role of thoughtful design in maximizing the effectiveness of virtual reality interventions in the realm of cognitive health. Moreover, Understanding the specific cognitive challenges faced by this population informs the tailoring of virtual reality interventions to meet their unique needs, thereby optimizing the potential benefits.

Additionally, unlike conventional cognitive exercises that might feel monotonous or repetitive, games often offer a dynamic and captivating environment that naturally holds the player’s attention [75]. This heightened engagement is significant as sustained focus and interest can foster a more immersive cognitive experience, potentially leading to increased neural plasticity and the strengthening of cognitive pathways. The interactive nature of games, requiring players to make quick decisions, solve puzzles, and adapt to changing scenarios, inherently stimulates a broader spectrum of cognitive functions, effectively providing a comprehensive mental workout [76]. In the other hand, the emotional and psychological involvement elicited by games can contribute significantly to their effectiveness [77, 78]. The enjoyment, achievement, and sense of progress experienced during gameplay can trigger the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, which are linked to motivation and reward systems in the brain [79]. This neurochemical response can create a positive feedback loop, encouraging individuals to invest more time and effort into gaming activities. As a result, the increased time spent engaging with games may lead to prolonged cognitive engagement and exposure to diverse cognitive challenges, ultimately facilitating more robust cognitive improvements. These findings shed light on the potential inherent in leveraging the unique qualities of gaming as a promising approach to address cognitive impairments more effectively, marking a paradigm shift in therapeutic interventions.

Study implication

Theoretical implications

The theoretical implications of this study contribute to the growing body of literature exploring innovative interventions for cognitive disorders. By demonstrating the statistically significant improvement in cognitive impairments among patients through VR-based interventions, our findings support the notion that technology, particularly virtual reality, can play a crucial role in addressing cognitive challenges. The identification of games as having a more substantial impact on cognitive impairment improvement compared to cognitive training programs adds nuance to individuals understanding of effective VR interventions. This insight may prompt further research into the specific attributes of VR games that contribute to cognitive benefits.

Furthermore, the identification of the type of VR intervention as a significant moderator of heterogeneity highlights the need for a nuanced approach in assessing and implementing VR-based interventions. Understanding the role of different VR interventions can inform the development of tailored interventions for specific cognitive disorders, thus contributing to the theoretical foundation of personalized cognitive rehabilitation strategies.

Practical implications

The practical implications of this study are particularly relevant for clinicians, caregivers, and policymakers involved in the care of individuals with cognitive disorders. The demonstrated promise of VR-based interventions in enhancing cognitive function suggests that incorporating such technologies into therapeutic approaches can be beneficial for patient care. Clinicians may consider integrating VR interventions, especially games, into their treatment plans to complement traditional cognitive training programs.

Caregivers can explore VR-based interventions as a potential at-home therapy option, offering individuals with cognitive disorders an engaging and accessible means of cognitive improvement. Policymakers may find value in supporting the integration of VR technologies into healthcare settings, recognizing their potential to enhance cognitive care and improve overall well-being in individuals with cognitive disorders.


This study has two limitations. Firstly, it only reviewed articles written in English, and it is recommended that future studies encompass articles published in non-English languages for a more inclusive analysis. Secondly, the search for related studies was conducted across three databases. However, to attain more comprehensive results, it is advisable to conduct further research across additional databases.


In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a substantial and statistically significant improvement in cognitive function through the utilization of virtual reality interventions. Notably, games emerged as a particularly effective approach, outperforming traditional cognitive training programs in enhancing cognitive abilities among patients. These results underscore the potential of virtual reality as a valuable tool in cognitive rehabilitation strategies and highlight the advantages of incorporating game-based interventions for optimal cognitive outcomes. Further researches and explorations in this domain may provide even more comprehensive insights into the therapeutic applications of virtual reality for cognitive enhancement in clinical settings.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.



Virtual reality


Mixed methods appraisal tool


Cognitive disorders


Known as neurocognitive disorders


Mini-mental state examination


Randomized clinical trial


Mild cognitive impairment


Montreal cognitive assessment


Trail-making test-A


Digit symbol substitution test, DST:digital span test, VFT:verbal fluency test


Modified barthel index


  1. Sangeeth GS, Solomon MD. Psychological competency among women informal carers of persons with neuro-cognitive disorder in rural thiruvananthapuram. Int J Res Social Sci (UGC J Number-48887). 2019;9(2):225–30.

  2. Trivedi JK. Cognitive deficits in psychiatric disorders: current status. Indian J Psychiatry. 2006;48(1):10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pusswald G, Tropper E, Kryspin-Exner I, Moser D, Klug S, Auff E, Dal-Bianco P, Lehrner J. Health-related quality of life in patients with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment and its relation to activities of daily living. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47(2):479–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Waagemans ML, van Nieuwenhuizen D, Dijkstra M, Wumkes M, Dirven CM, Leenstra S, Reijneveld JC, Klein M, Stalpers LJ. Long-term impact of cognitive deficits and epilepsy on quality of life in patients with low-grade meningiomas. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(1):72–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Uddin M, Mamun A, Sarwar M, Chaity N, Haque A, Akter N, Amran M. Medicine that causes memory loss: risk of neurocognitive disorders. Int Neuropsychiatric Disease J. 2016;8(1):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Langa KM, Levine DA. The diagnosis and management of mild cognitive impairment: a clinical review. JAMA. 2014;312(23):2551–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Maher P. The potential of flavonoids for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(12): 3056.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldman JG, Vernaleo BA, Camicioli R, Dahodwala N, Dobkin RD, Ellis T, Galvin JE, Marras C, Edwards J, Fields J. Cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: a report from a multidisciplinary symposium on unmet needs and future directions to maintain cognitive health. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018;4(1):19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hsiung G-YR. Epidemiology of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Atlas of Alzheimer’s disease. CRC Press; 2007. p. 27–40.

  10. Sikkes SA, Tang Y, Jutten RJ, Wesselman LM, Turkstra LS, Brodaty H, Clare L, Cassidy-Eagle E, Cox KL, Chételat G. Toward a theory‐based specification of non‐pharmacological treatments in aging and dementia: focused reviews and methodological recommendations. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2021;17(2):255–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cordell CB, Borson S, Boustani M, Chodosh J, Reuben D, Verghese J, Thies W, Fried LB. Workgroup MDoCI: Alzheimer’s Association recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit in a primary care setting. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2013;9(2):141–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grassini S. Virtual reality assisted non-pharmacological treatments in chronic pain management: a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7): 4071.

  13. Laghari AA, Jumani AK, Kumar K, Chhajro MA. Systematic analysis of virtual reality and augmented reality. Int J Inform Eng Electron Bus. 2021;13(1):36–43.

  14. Merchant Z, Goetz ET, Cifuentes L, Keeney-Kennicutt W, Davis TJ. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2014;70:29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Asad MM, Naz A, Churi P, Tahanzadeh MM. Virtual reality as pedagogical tool to enhance experiential learning: a systematic literature review. Educ Res Int. 2021;2021:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Foxman M, Leith AP, Beyea D, Klebig B, Chen VHH, Ratan R. Virtual reality genres: Comparing preferences in immersive experiences and games. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play: 2020; 2020. p. 237–241.

  17. Tao G, Garrett B, Taverner T, Cordingley E, Sun C. Immersive virtual reality health games: a narrative review of game design. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moulaei K, Bahaadinbeigy K, Haghdoostd A, Nezhad MS, Gheysari M, Sheikhtaheri A. An analysis of clinical outcomes and essential parameters for designing effective games for upper limb rehabilitation: a scoping review. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6(5):e1255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Baabdullah AM, Ribeiro-Navarrete S, Giannakis M, Al-Debei MM, Dennehy D, Metri B, Buhalis D, Cheung CM. Metaverse beyond the hype: multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag. 2022;66:102542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ferrer-García M, Gutiérrez-Maldonado J. The use of virtual reality in the study, assessment, and treatment of body image in eating disorders and nonclinical samples: a review of the literature. Body Image. 2012;9(1):1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shahmoradi L, Rezayi S. Cognitive rehabilitation in people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review of emerging virtual reality-based approaches. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19(1):91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Grealy MA, Johnson DA, Rushton SK. Improving cognitive function after brain injury: the use of exercise and virtual reality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(6):661–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhou Z, Jiang S, Yang Z, Zhou L. Personalized planning and training system for brachytherapy based on virtual reality. Virtual Reality. 2019;23:347–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oliveira J, Gamito P, Souto T, Conde R, Ferreira M, Corotnean T, Fernandes A, Silva H, Neto T. Virtual reality-based cognitive stimulation on people with mild to moderate dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10): 5290.

  25. Foloppe DA, Richard P, Yamaguchi T, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Allain P. The potential of virtual reality-based training to enhance the functional autonomy of Alzheimer’s disease patients in cooking activities: a single case study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):709–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Serino S, Pedroli E, Tuena C, De Leo G, Stramba-Badiale M, Goulene K, Mariotti NG, Riva G. A novel virtual reality-based training protocol for the enhancement of the mental frame syncing in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: a development-of-concept trial. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017;9:240.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosa PJ, Sousa C, Faustino B, Feiteira F, Oliveira J, Lopes P, Gamito P, Morais D: The effect of virtual reality-based serious games in cognitive interventions: a meta-analysis study. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on icts for improving patients rehabilitation research techniques: 2016; 2016. p. 113–116.

  28. Zhu S, Sui Y, Shen Y, Zhu Y, Ali N, Guo C, Wang T. Effects of virtual reality intervention on cognition and motor function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13: 586999.

  29. Zhang Q, Fu Y, Lu Y, Zhang Y, Huang Q, Yang Y, Zhang K, Li M. Impact of virtual reality-based therapies on cognition and mental health of stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11): e31007.

  30. Yan M, Zhao Y, Meng Q, Wang S, Ding Y, Liu Q, Yin H, Chen L. Effects of virtual reality combined cognitive and physical interventions on cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2022;81:101708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yu D, Li X, Lai FH-y. The effect of virtual reality on executive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Ment Health. 2023;27(4):663–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moulaei K, Moulaei R, Bahaadinbeigy K. Barriers and facilitators of using health information technologies by women: a scoping review. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2023;23(1):176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Qiu J, Lv H. An overview of knowledge management research viewed through the web of science (1993–2012). Aslib J Inform Manage. 2014;66(4):424–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hernandez AV, Marti KM, Roman YM. Meta-analysis. Chest. 2020;158(1):97-S102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau B. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018: user guide. Montreal: McGill University; 2018. p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau BJRoc. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. 2018;10(2018);1–11.

  37. Thordardottir B, Malmgren Fänge A, Lethin C, Rodriguez Gatta D, Chiatti C. Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:9196729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kang JM, Kim N, Lee SY, Woo SK, Park G, Yeon BK, Park JW, Youn JH, Ryu SH, Lee JY, Cho SJ. Effect of cognitive training in fully immersive virtual reality on visuospatial function and frontal-occipital functional connectivity in predementia: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5): e24526.

  39. Park JH. Effects of virtual reality-based spatial cognitive training on hippocampal function of older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Int Psychogeriatr. 2022;34(2):157–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang JG, Thapa N, Park HJ, Bae S, Park KW, Park JH, Park H. Virtual reality and exercise training enhance brain, cognitive, and physical health in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(20):13300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thapa N, Park HJ, Yang JG, Son H, Jang M, Lee J, Kang SW, Park KW, Park H. The effect of a virtual reality-based intervention program on cognition in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized control trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5):1283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lim EH, Kim DS, Won YH, Park SH, Seo JH, Ko MH, Kim GW. Effects of home based serious game training (Brain Talk™) in the elderly with mild cognitive impairment: randomized, a single-blind, controlled trial. Brain NeuroRehabilitation. 2023;16(1):e4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Optale G, Urgesi C, Busato V, Marin S, Piron L, Priftis K, Gamberini L, Capodieci S, Bordin A. Controlling memory impairment in elderly adults using virtual reality memory training: a randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(4):348–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tarnanas I, Tsolakis A, Tsolaki MJToIW-BSG, Alternative Realities, Therapy P. Assessing virtual reality environments as cognitive stimulation method for patients with MCI. 2014;3(14):39–74.

  45. Oliveira J, Gamito P, Souto T, Conde R, Ferreira M, Corotnean T, Fernandes A, Silva H, Neto T. Virtual reality-based cognitive stimulation on people with mild to moderate dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5290.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kim DR, Song S, Kim GM, Chang JH, Tak YJ, Huh U, Cho JS, Liao Y, Han KS, Ko MH, Park JH. Effects of ICT-based multicomponent program on body composition and cognitive function in older adults: a randomized controlled clinical study. Clin Interv Aging. 2021;16:1161–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zheng J, Yu P, Chen XJCG. An evaluation of the effects of active game play on cognition, quality of life and depression for older people with dementia. Clin Gerontol. 2022;45(4):1034–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fox KC, Nijeboer S, Dixon ML, Floman JL, Ellamil M, Rumak SP, Sedlmeier P, Christoff KJN, Reviews B. Is meditation associated with altered brain structure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of morphometric neuroimaging in meditation practitioners. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;43(2014):48–73.

  49. Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Huang L-C, Yang Y-H. The long-term effects of immersive virtual reality reminiscence in people with dementia: longitudinal observational study. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(3): e36720.

  51. Tominari M, Uozumi R, Becker C, Kinoshita A. Reminiscence therapy using virtual reality technology affects cognitive function and subjective well-being in older adults with dementia. Cogent Psychol. 2021;8(1):1968991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhu K, Zhang Q, He B, Huang M, Lin R, Li H. Immersive virtual reality–based cognitive intervention for the improvement of cognitive function, depression, and perceived stress in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia: pilot pre-post study. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(1): e32117.

  53. Maeng S, Hong JP, Kim W-H, Kim H, Cho S-E, Kang JM, Na K-S, Oh S-H, Park JW, Bae JN. Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in the elderly with and without mild cognitive impairment. Psychiatry Invest. 2021;18(7):619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Torpil B, Şahin S, Pekçetin S, Uyanık M. The effectiveness of a virtual reality-based intervention on cognitive functions in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Games Health J. 2021;10(2):109–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Thapa N, Park HJ, Yang J-G, Son H, Jang M, Lee J, Kang SW, Park KW, Park H. The effect of a virtual reality-based intervention program on cognition in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized control trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5): 1283.

  56. Yang S, Chun MH, Son YR. Effect of virtual reality on cognitive dysfunction in patients with brain tumor. Annals Rehabilitation Med. 2014;38(6):726–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zając-Lamparska L, Wiłkość-Dębczyńska M, Wojciechowski A, Podhorecka M, Polak-Szabela A, Warchoł Ł, Kędziora-Kornatowska K, Araszkiewicz A, Izdebski P. Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in older adults living without and with mild dementia: a pretest–posttest design pilot study. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Välimäki M, Hätönen HM, Lahti ME, Kurki M, Hottinen A, Metsäranta K, Riihimäki T, Adams CE. Virtual reality for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(10):Cd009928.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Manera V, Chapoulie E, Bourgeois J, Guerchouche R, David R, Ondrej J, Drettakis G, Robert P. A feasibility study with image-based rendered virtual reality in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3): e0151487.

  60. Then JW, Shivdas S, Yahaya TSTA, Ab Razak NI, Choo PT. Gamification in rehabilitation of metacarpal fracture using cost-effective end-user device: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Ther. 2020;33(2):235–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. González-Salvador T, Lyketsos CG, Baker A, Hovanec L, Roques C, Brandt J, Steele C. Quality of life in dementia patients in long‐term care. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000;15(2):181–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Morgan DG, Stewart NJ. The importance of the social environment in dementia care. West J Nurs Res. 1997;19(6):740–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rose FD, Attree EA, Brooks BM, Andrews TK. Learning and memory in virtual environments: a role in neurorehabilitation? Questions (and occasional answers) from the University of East London. Presence. 2001;10(4):345–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. El-Miedany Y. How to be a good educator. I n rheumatology teaching, the art and science of medical education. Cham: In.: Springer; 2019. p. 475–95.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sánchez A, Millán-Calenti JC, Lorenzo-López L, Maseda A. Multisensory stimulation for people with dementia: a review of the literature. Am J Alzheimer’s Dis Other Demen®. 2013;28(1):7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Liu Z, He Z, Yuan J, Lin H, Fu C, Zhang Y, Wang N, Li G, Bu J, Chen M. Application of immersive virtual-reality-based puzzle games in elderly patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Brain Sci. 2022;13(1): 79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Ou Y-K, Wang Y-L, Chang H-C, Yen S-Y, Zheng Y-H, Lee B-O. Development of virtual reality rehabilitation games for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2020;11:5713–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rodrigo-Yanguas M, Martin-Moratinos M, Menendez-Garcia A, Gonzalez-Tardon C, Royuela A, Blasco-Fontecilla H. A virtual reality game (the Secret Trail of Moon) for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: development and usability study. JMIR Serious Games. 2021;9(3): e26824.

  69. Barak Ventura R, Stewart Hughes K, Nov O, Raghavan P, Ruiz Marín M, Porfiri M. Data-driven classification of human movements in virtual reality–based serious games: preclinical rehabilitation study in citizen science. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(1): e27597.

  70. Ashwini K, Ponuma R, Amutha R. Fine motor skills and cognitive development using virtual reality-based games in children. Handbook of decision support systems for Neurological disorders. Elsevier; 2021. p. 187–201.

  71. Serafin S, Adjorlu A, Percy-Smith LM. A review of virtual reality for individuals with hearing impairments. Multimodal Technol Interact. 2023;7(4):36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Kim BR, Chun MH, Kim LS, Park JY. Effect of virtual reality on cognition in stroke patients. Annals Rehabilitation Med. 2011;35(4):450–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Schmalstieg D, Wagner D. Experiences with handheld augmented reality. In: 2007 6th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality: 2007. Nara, Japan; 2007. p. 3–18.

  74. Samarasinghe H, Weerasooriya W, Weerasinghe G, Ekanayaka Y, Rajapakse R, Wijesinghe D. Serious games design considerations for people with Alzheimer’s disease in developing nations. In: 2017 IEEE 5th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH): 2017: IEEE; 2017: 1–5.

  75. Zhang J. Cognitive functions of the brain: perception, attention and memory. arXiv Preprint arXiv:190702863 2019.

  76. Santarnecchi E, Sprugnoli G, Bricolo E, Costantini G, Liew S-L, Musaeus CS, Salvi C, Pascual-Leone A, Rossi A, Rossi S. Gamma tACS over the temporal lobe increases the occurrence of Eureka! moments. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):5778.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Hisam A, Mashhadi SF, Faheem M, Sohail M, Ikhlaq B, Iqbal I. Does playing video games effect cognitive abilities in Pakistani children? Pakistan J Med Sci. 2018;34(6):1507.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Lumsden J, Edwards EA, Lawrence NS, Coyle D, Munafò MR. Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: a systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Serious Games. 2016;4(2):e5888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Lewis-Evans B. Dopamine and games–liking, learning, or wanting to play. Gamasutra: The Art and Business of Making Games; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Central Library and Documentation Center of ILAM University of Medical Sciences for providing access to the knowledge base references required for this study.


There was no funding for this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Author Contributions Statement: KHM, HSH and KB conceived the study design. KHM, and FD conducted title/abstract and full-text screening. KHM and FD performed the data extraction. KHM, HSH and FD wrote the manuscript and all the authors contributed to reviewing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatemeh Dinari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moulaei, K., Sharifi, H., Bahaadinbeigy, K. et al. Efficacy of virtual reality-based training programs and games on the improvement of cognitive disorders in patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 24, 116 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: