Virtual Reality (VR) offers the possibility to assess cognitive functioning in a dynamic environment resembling daily life. In this cross-sectional study, we used two user interfaces, namely non-immersive VR by using a computer monitor (CM) and immersive VR by using a head-mounted display (HMD). We investigated (1) potential differences in feasibility, user-experience, and a potential preference for one user interface over another between stroke patients and healthy controls; (2) potential differences in feasibility, user-experience, and preference between patients referred for inpatient rehabilitation care and patients referred for outpatient rehabilitation care; and (3) potential demographic and clinical characteristics that were related to patients' preference for one user interface over another. Stroke patients (n = 88) and healthy controls (n = 66) performed a VR-task with a CM and HMD. Both user interfaces were feasible to use, irrespective of clinical referral (in- or outpatient rehabilitation care). Patients reported an enhanced feeling of engagement, transportation, flow, and presence, but more negative side effects when tested with a HMD, compared to a CM. The majority of stroke patients had no preference for one user interface over the other, yet younger patients tended to prefer a HMD. VR seems highly feasible in stroke patients
