**1. Introduction**

One of the sustainable development objectives suggested by the United Nations (UN) is oriented toward the universal and integral coverage of health services, and the reduction of its inequalities, in order for everyone to be in good health [1]. In accordance with the above, it is taken into account that inequalities contribute to millions of people with disabilities facing di fficulties in carrying out their basic daily activities. This is more pronounced among people from communities with fewer opportunities and resources, which are generally geographically located in areas that are distant from the services required for rehabilitation processes [2].

Of the di fferent types of disabilities, motor disability is considered to be one of the main limitations to human beings carrying out their basic activities, a ffecting the quality of life of the individual, as well as that of those around them [3]. In the last few years, telemedicine and telerehabilitation have been strengthened with the implementation of diverse technologies that support rehabilitation processes, oriented toward providing patients with the services required, reducing the number of journeys to

main cities, where, in general, specialists, hospitals, clinics, and centers equipped with the technology for the therapies are located. The benefits of telemedicine are more evident in cases associated with traveling and the mobility of the patient, costs, or other factors, for instance, in a situation of isolation or confinement such as that experienced worldwide due to COVID 19, which does not allow people to travel somewhere that is adapted for the necessary therapy session for the patients' recovery [4].

Although in the last few years there have been many technological proposals that support physical rehabilitation, there are still di fficulties and gaps in the area which represent an opportunity to contribute to improvements in biomechanical data capture accuracy, the coverage and a ffordability of health services, and the flexibility and motivation o ffered to the patients.

With the purpose of identifying the advances and the options available, in order to contribute to the improvement of motor rehabilitation processes, this review includes works published between 2015 and June 2020, oriented toward the support of upper limb physical rehabilitation, which use videogames and a motion capture system. These publications mainly show the use of the Kinect sensor and inertial sensors as motion capture systems. At the same time, it is identified that the works included mainly support motor rehabilitation in people who have su ffered a stroke, and another aspect that stands out is the use of commercial systems on the market, which o ffer di fferent videogames for motor rehabilitation. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the main contributions to this type of rehabilitation in order to identify the opportunities and challenges that should be taken into consideration in future proposals, focused on the improvement in quality of life of people with motor disabilities.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This section provides a description of the process and criteria taken into account to conduct the article selection included in this documental research, according to aspects of the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) [5]. This allowed the authors to critically identify, select, and evaluate the relevant research, as well as compile and analyze the data from the studies included in the review.

## *2.1. Eligibility Criteria*

The eligibility criteria taken into consideration for inclusion of the studies in this review were (i) that they were published in English, (ii) that they were published within the last 5 years, in the period 2015–June 2020, (iii) that the full text was open access, and (iv) that the type of document was an article, systematic review, state-of-the-art review, or journal.

Concerning the second aspect, the period mentioned was selected, given that as, from 2010, when Kinect was created, and until 2015, its use became popular in di fferent contexts. After 2015, it is noticeable that there was an upsurge of companies and projects using other motion capture systems and integrating serious videogames, in addition to the Kinect sensor, in the field of rehabilitation, which is the main interest of the present study. Another relevant element in this review is that the studies included had therapeutic purposes of rehabilitation or telerehabilitation of the upper limb using videogames and some motion capture system, regardless of the gender and age of the population which participated in the validation of the proposals described.

#### *2.2. Search Strategy*

The search of the publications was carried out in four academic databases: Scopus, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science. The following search terms, classified into four groups, were used: (i) medical aspect: rehabilitation, health, "physical therapy", musculoskeletal, telerehabilitation, "tele-rehabilitation", "tele rehabilitation"; (ii) use of videogames: videogames, "video games", video-games, "serious videogames", "serious games", "serious video games", exergames, exergaming, "active videogames"; (iii) motion capture system technology: "inertial sensor", "motion capture", mocap, "motion capture system", wearable; iv) segmen<sup>t</sup> or part of the body the rehabilitation is focused

on: "upper limb", elbow, shoulder, arm, wrist, humerus. In the search parameters used in the databases (see Table 1), in each group, the operator OR was included between the di fferent terms considered to be synonyms, and, to separate the groups, the operator AND was used, thereby enabling the search to include at least one relevant term from each group in the data consultation.


**Table 1.** Search parameters in the di fferent databases.

The terminology used to refer to motion capture technology often changes between scientific domains. For instance, in clinical studies, it may be possible that focus was given to the manufacturer name. In other papers, alternative terms may have been used, such as simply "accelerometers" or "motion sensing". We recognize this is a limitation of the methodology adopted in this paper, which may have prevented some papers from being listed in the first stage.

#### *2.3. Description of the Selection Process of the Study*

The selection process of the works related to the review topic included four phases: firstly, the identification of the studies, in which all the records that respond to the search parameters in each database were taken into account; secondly, the application of a filter, using the eligibility criteria, in order to select the works related to the purpose of the review, which are available and can be accessed; thirdly, a "screening" phase, which filtered out works, eliminating those that did not adjust to the focus of the investigation and/or those which appeared in multiple databases; finally, an inclusion phase, allowing for the identification of documents to be part of the detailed analysis of the systematic review.
