What the research says about VR and AR for people with communication differences across the lifespan
How this was rated
Systematic review synthesizing studies across populations. Certainty of its conclusions depends on the included primary studies; see the review's own quality assessment.
Ratings use a simplified four-tier scheme (High, Moderate, Low, Very Low) informed by the GRADE working group. Learn more about how studies are rated.
A systematic review of VR and AR applications for children, adolescents, and adults with communication differences found growing evidence of feasibility and positive outcomes, while highlighting the need for more rigorous research designs and larger studies.
A systematic review indicating that VR in speech-language work is a growing field with predominantly small-sample studies; firm conclusions about effect remain limited by the evidence base reviewed.
Key findings
- The majority of included studies reported positive outcomes for communication and social interaction when using VR or AR
- Most studies used small samples and lacked control groups, limiting the strength of conclusions that can be drawn
- VR and AR applications spanned a wide range of communication differences, including those related to autism, aphasia, and other neurodevelopmental profiles
Background
Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies have attracted increasing interest as tools for supporting people with communication differences. These technologies can create interactive, customizable environments for practicing social and communicative skills in ways that may be difficult to achieve in everyday settings. However, the evidence base has grown rapidly and across diverse populations, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to gain a clear overview of what is known and where gaps remain.
Bailey and colleagues conducted a systematic review to synthesize the available evidence on VR and AR applications for people with communication differences and neurodevelopmental profiles across the lifespan.
What the researchers did
Bailey, Bryant, and Hemsley - based at the University of Technology Sydney and The University of Newcastle Australia - conducted a systematic review registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019136635). They searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for studies using VR or AR with children, adolescents, or adults with communication disability or neurodevelopmental disorders. From 5,344 records screened, 49 studies were included. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). In practice, the review skewed heavily toward autism spectrum conditions, which represented approximately three-quarters of included studies.
What they found
The review identified studies spanning a wide range of populations, including people on the autism spectrum, people with aphasia, and people with other communication differences. The majority of included studies reported positive outcomes, with participants showing improvements in areas such as social communication, conversational skills, and functional language use. However, the overall quality of evidence was limited: most studies used small samples, lacked control groups, and employed varied outcome measures, making comparison across studies difficult. Few large-scale randomized controlled trials were identified.
Why this matters
This review provides a valuable overview of a rapidly expanding field. It confirms that VR and AR are feasible and generally well-received across diverse populations of people with communication differences. At the same time, it highlights that the evidence base remains in its early stages - clinicians can be cautiously optimistic about these technologies, but should look for continued high-quality research before drawing firm conclusions about effectiveness for specific populations or communication goals.
Limitations
The heterogeneity of included studies - in terms of populations, technologies, and outcome measures - made quantitative synthesis challenging. Publication bias may have inflated the proportion of positive findings. The review focused on published peer-reviewed literature, potentially missing relevant gray literature or unpublished work. Rapidly evolving technology means that some findings may already reflect outdated platforms or hardware.
Implications for practice
VR and AR show promise as tools for supporting communication development and social interaction across a range of populations Clinicians should be aware that while early findings are encouraging, the evidence base is still developing and few high-quality RCTs exist Future implementation should prioritize user-centered design and include people with communication differences in the development process
Where this connects to Therapy withVR
The study above is independent research and does not endorse any product. The notes below are commentary from withVR on how the themes in this research relate to features of Therapy withVR. The research findings are not claims about Therapy withVR.
Comprehensive VR Platform
This review highlighted the need for customizable, user-centered VR tools - Therapy withVR provides 12 environments, real-time clinician control, and AI features designed around clinical needs across communication areas.
Cite this study
If you reference this study in your work, the canonical citation formats are:
@article{bailey2022,
author = {Bailey, B. and Bryant, L. and Hemsley, B.},
title = {Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality for Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Communication Disability and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: a Systematic Review},
journal = {Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1007/s40489-021-00269-4},
url = {https://withvr.app/evidence/studies/bailey-2022}
}TY - JOUR
AU - Bailey, B.
AU - Bryant, L.
AU - Hemsley, B.
TI - Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality for Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Communication Disability and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: a Systematic Review
JO - Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
PY - 2022
DO - 10.1007/s40489-021-00269-4
UR - https://withvr.app/evidence/studies/bailey-2022
ER - Know of research that should be in this hub? If a relevant peer-reviewed study is not listed here, send the reference to hello@withvr.app. The hub is kept up to date as the literature grows.
Funding & independence
No withVR BV involvement in funding, study design, or authorship. Summary prepared independently by withVR using the published paper.