## 4 Discussion  
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of AR system for the upper limbs of patients who experienced a stroke. Positive effects after the intervention were detected in the participant. A few studies have chosen the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test (JTHFT) to evaluate the effect of motor function recovery because of (1) the standardized tasks relative to norms; (2) everyday activities tasks; (3) using readily available materials [36]. In our results, there was no change in the total scores of JTHFT, but the results show the small improvements in writing and stacking checkers test of JTHFT after \(10\) days of intervention. [PERSON] et al. used JTHFT to assess the fine motor dexterity of patients with brain damage. The clinical results showed the improvements in the speed and precision of fine movement in two of three patients. However, there was one patient who did not transfer the improvement to the functional activities after the intervention [37]. These improvements of writing, stacking checker, and speed movement were consistent with the need for fine, sequential, and bimanual coordination skills of the finger and thumb. In addition, the Arm Motor Fugl-Meyer Test is most commonly used to assess the upper limb function in the stroke patient [38]. In this study, we used the wrist/hand and proximal arm Fugl-Meyer to assess the effect of functional recovery for the mildly impaired stroke survivor. After \(10\) days of intervention, the results showed the improvement in the scores of wrist/hand and proximal arm Fugl-Meyer. Particularly, the patient was able to reach the highest score of the proximal arm (\(34\)/\(34\)) and wrist/hand (\(23\)/\(24\)). Compared to the other methods, [PERSON] et al. reported that both VR and control \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Side Effect Assessment** & **Post-Intervention (10 Days)** \\ \hline Dizziness & \(3.6\pm 1.83\) \\ Psychological anxiety & \(0\) \\ Boredom & \(0\) \\ Gloomy feeling & \(0\) \\ Muscle twist & \(1\pm 1.69\) \\ Motion sickness & \(2.6\pm 2.5\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Adverse effects evaluation after the intervention. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline  & **Post-Intervention (10 Days)** \\ \hline Validation of virtual reality (\(-5\) to \(5\)) & \(0.8\pm 1.79\) \\ Validation of augmented reality (\(-5\) to \(5\)) & \(-4.16\pm 1.89\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Validation of virtual reality and augmented reality. group showed significant improvements at the end of treatment in wrist/hand Fugl-Meyer (\(p=0.034\) and \(p=0.04\)) [39]. However, these improvements were significant with respect to baseline, but they were modest for both groups at end of treatment (\(0.8\pm 1.4\) in VR versus \(1.3\pm 2.3\) in control). This indicated that the improvement of our system in wrist/hand Fugl-Meyer is superior to the improvement in VR. The prominence could be explained by using patients with better functions in wrist/hand Fugl-Meyer in the current study. Furthermore, the specific task of the flexion and extension of the wrist joint promoted by our system could also explain the improvement detected in the active ROM and the nine-hole pegboard test, stroke impact scale, and grasp force in Newtons. This is also consistent with the previous report of robotic rehabilitation [40]. Hence, our system showed to be as effective as other methods since it can promote hand dexterity, as measured by the nine-hole pegboard test and active ROM while being simpler than the robotic systems. There were several limitations to our study. Firstly, although the results showed the improvement of the functional motor, they are not powered to detect significant changes due to the small sample size. Secondly, our system could not induce a high sense of the presence and embodiment for the patient.