No abstract

Wearable sensors can measure head impact frequency and magnitude in football players. Our goal was to quantify the impact detection rate and validity of the direction and peak kinematics of two wearable sensors: a helmet system (HITS) and a mouthguard system (X2). Using a linear impactor, modified Hybrid-III headform and one helmet model, we conducted 16 impacts for each system at 12 helmet sites and 5 speeds (3.6-11.2 m/s) (N = 896 tests). Peak linear and angular accelerations (PLA, PAA), head injury criteria (HIC) and impact directions from each device were compared to reference sensors in the headform. Both sensors detected ~96% of impacts. Median angular errors for impact directions were 34° for HITS and 16° for X2. PLA, PAA and HIC were simultaneously valid at 2 sites for HITS (side, oblique) and one site for X2 (side). At least one kinematic parameter was valid at 2 and 7 other sites for HITS and X2 respectively. Median relative errors for PLA were 7% for HITS and -7% for X2. Although sensor validity may differ for other helmets and headforms, our analyses show that data generated by these two sensors need careful interpretation.

A headform is needed to validate and compare helmet- and mouthguard-based sensors that measure the severity and direction of football head impacts. Our goal was to quantify the dynamic response of a mandibular load-sensing headform (MLSH) and to compare its performance and repeatability to an unmodified Hybrid III headform. Linear impactors in two independent laboratories were used to strike each headform at six locations at 5.5 m/s and at two locations at 3.6 and 7.4 m/s. Impact severity was quantified using peak linear acceleration (PLA) and peak angular acceleration (PAA), and direction was quantified using the azimuth and elevation of the PLA. Repeatability was quantified using coefficients of variation (COV) and standard deviations (SD). Across all impacts, PLA was 1.6±1.8 g higher in the MLSH than in the Hybrid III (p=0.002), but there were no differences in PAA (p=0.25), azimuth (p=0.43) and elevation (p=0.11). Both headforms exhibited excellent or acceptable repeatability for PLA (HIII:COV=2.1±0.8%, MLSH:COV=2.0±1.2%, p=0.98), but site-specific repeatability ranging from excellent to poor for PAA (HIII:COV=7.2±4.0%, MLSH:COV=8.3±5.8%, p=0.58). Direction SD were generally <1° and did not vary between headforms. Overall, both headforms are similarly suitable for validating PLA in sensors that measure head impact severity in football players, however their utility for validating sensor PAA values varies with impact location.