2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-02647-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Two-Phased Approach to Quantifying Head Impact Sensor Accuracy: In-Laboratory and On-Field Assessments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
98
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
3
98
0
Order By: Relevance
“…45 Independent tests done for the Virginia Tech 5STAR Sensor Rating found laboratory concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to Reference headform of 0.97 and the IMM System was the best performing on-field sensor with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96%. 38 Additional details on the IMM data acquisition can be found in the Appendix (Electronic supplementary material).…”
Section: On-field Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…45 Independent tests done for the Virginia Tech 5STAR Sensor Rating found laboratory concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to Reference headform of 0.97 and the IMM System was the best performing on-field sensor with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96%. 38 Additional details on the IMM data acquisition can be found in the Appendix (Electronic supplementary material).…”
Section: On-field Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…► Phase 1 will determine the reliability and validity of the iMG kinematic magnitude measures, based on laboratory criterion standards. 13 14 ► Phase 2 will provide a sample of academy players with iMGs to wear in matches, to determine the on-field validity of the iMG. 13 15 16 ► Phase 3 will provide a sample of elite rugby league players with iMGs to evaluate fit, function and comfort from a player's perspective.…”
Section: Research Aimsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 19 Phase 1-laboratory validation of kinematic measures Phase 1 is required to ensure that HAE data recorded on the iMGs are reliable and valid. The methodology builds on the work of Kieffer et al 13 who conducted a twophased approach evaluating the accuracy of a range of wearable head sensors (eg, mouthguards, ear patches). The aim of in-lab testing of kinematic measures (phase 1) is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the iMG kinematic magnitude measures at the Virginia Tech Head Impact Lab (USA).…”
Section: Research Aimsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…20 To provide an objective evaluation of both laboratory and on-field performance of head impact sensors, Kieffer et al developed a twophase approach to sensor testing. 13 The first phase used a pendulum impactor to test laboratory performance, followed by the second phase of on-field testing from video verification of impacts if the sensor performed adequately in the laboratory. A custom-fit mouthguard sensor had high accuracy in both laboratory and on-field testing.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%