The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of protective football headgear on peripheral vision reaction time and visual target detection. Twenty-five Division I NCAA football players (age = 20.5 yrs ± 0.9, height = 185.9 cm ± 6.8, body mass = 99.2 kg ± 19.2, BMI = 29.6 ± 4.5) participated. In a crossover counterbalanced study design, subjects participated in one visit with three conditions: Baseline (BL) without headgear, helmet only (HO), helmet with an eye shield (HE). Subjects completed a 1-min peripheral vision reaction time test for each condition separated by 3-min recovery periods. Tests were administered using a 64 light Dynavision D2 Visuomotor board. Target detection (total hit score) was higher during BL than HO (p < 0.001) and HE (p < 0.001). Average (p < 0.001), peak (p < 0.001), minimum (p < 0.001), and median (p < 0.001) peripheral reaction times were faster during BL than HO and HE. No significant differences were observed for any measures between HO and HE conditions (p > 0.05). Findings indicate that protective football headgear impaired reaction time to peripheral visual stimuli. The addition of an eye shield to the helmet had a small non-significant effect on reaction time and target detection. These results may hold important implications in helmet design and player safety.

Visual impairment has been shown to reduce muscle power when compared with that in sighted individuals. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the loss of visual input affects lower limb muscle power production in sighted men and women who are resistance trained and untrained. Twenty-seven college-aged participants (19-23 years) performed a seated double-leg press with and without visual input (resulting from being blindfold) in 2 separate counterbalanced trials. Lower limb concentric power was calculated by measuring the distance and time a leg press footplate was displaced while lifting 60% of 1-repetition maximum as quickly as possible. Loss of visual input reduced power output by 22.8 W (-6.4%) in all participants (p < 0.01). When resistance training status was taken into account, resistance trained participants (n = 12, trained >2× per week) did not lose power output (4.4 W, -1.1%, p = 0.90), whereas untrained men and women (n = 15) had significantly less power when visual input was removed via blindfold (37.6 W, -11.7%, p < 0.01). Untrained women experienced the greatest decrease in power when blindfolded (39 W, -15.9%, p < 0.01). Muscle power decreases in the absence of vision, but a regular strength training program attenuates this occurrence in young men and women. In practical application, strength training interventions may be successful in protecting individuals from losses in muscle power when visual input is removed.

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of the color of light in a room on muscular strength and power. A convenience sample of 18 men (M age = 20.4 yr., SD = 1.2) performed a modified Wingate Anaerobic Cycle Test for muscular power and a hand grip strength test in each of the following conditions: red, blue, and white (neutral) ambient light. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that average muscular power was significantly higher when performing the test in the room with red light compared to rooms lit with blue light or white light. The results also indicated that grip strength was significantly higher in the room lit with white light as compared to the room lit with blue light.

No abstract

To cultivate faculty facilitators in interprofessional education, a college of health sciences at a Christian university established a fellowship for interprofessional development that incorporated faith-based activities. Twenty-eight faculty formed nine interprofessional project groups that participated in the 12-month fellowship across two academic years. The objective was to gain competence in interprofessional education. Analysis of pre- and postassessment findings revealed a statistically significant difference between the two assessments in seeking information related to faith-based aspects of care. This educational intervention suggests that the inclusion of a faith component may help to shift faculty perceptions of faith-based care during development of interprofessional education opportunities.