An envelope of linear and rotational head motion during everyday activities

Miller, Logan E.; Urban, Jillian E.; Whelan, Vincent M.; Baxter, Walt; Tatter, Stephen B.; Stitzel, Joel D.

doi:10.1007/s10237-019-01267-6

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most false-positives observed for Prevent (78%) occurred whilst players were running (Supplementary Table 1). These may represent true head accelerations from inertial loading during non-contact events,[14,15] necessitating HAE detection algorithms to differentiate contact from non-contact events. [1] This study defined true-positives as HAE during contact events, however HAE from non-contact events (e.g., running and jumping) may also be desirable in future studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ready for Impact? A validity and feasibility study of instrumented mouthguards (iMGs)

Jones

Tooby

Weaving

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Determine the validity and feasibility of current Instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) and associated systems. Methods Phase 1; Four iMG systems (Football Research Inc [FRI], HitIQ, ORB, Prevent) were compared against dummy headform laboratory criterion standards (25, 50, 75, 100 g). Phase 2; Four iMG systems were evaluated for on-field validity of iMG-triggered events against video-verification to determine true-positives, false-positives and false-negatives (20 SD 9 player matches per iMG). Phase 3; Four iMG systems were evaluated by eighteen rugby players, for perceptions of fit, comfort and function. Phase 4; Three iMG systems (FRI, HitIQ, Prevent) were evaluated for practical feasibility (system usability scale; SUS) by four practitioners. Results Phase 1; Total concordance correlation coefficient was 98.3%, 95.3%, 42.5% and 97.9% for FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase 2; Different on-field kinematics were observed between iMGs. Positive predictive values were 0.98, 0.90, 0.53 and 0.94 for FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Sensitivity values were 0.51, 0.40, 0.71 and 0.75 for FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase 3; player perceptions of fit, comfort and function were 77%, 6/10, 55% for FRI, 88%, 8/10, 61% for HitIQ, 65%, 5/10, 43% for ORB, and 85%, 8/10, 67% for Prevent. Phase 4; SUS was 51.3-50.6/100, 71.3-78.8/100, and 83.8-80.0/100 for FRI, HitIQ, and Prevent. Conclusion This study shows that differences between current iMG systems exist. Sporting organisations can use these findings to ensure accurate head acceleration event data are obtained and system adoption is optimized, to support player welfare initiatives directly related to long-term brain health.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ready for Impact? A validity and feasibility study of instrumented mouthguards (iMGs)

Jones

Tooby

Weaving

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were 7 and 4 studies describing linear and angular head accelerations, respectively, for the 6 ADLs selected for the pooled analysis [ 5 , 6 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. Note: the studies were the same as those identified in the 2020 review paper by Miller et al from which the 6 ADLs were selected [ 13 ]. A literature search revealed no additional relevant studies since the publication of this review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies that described linear and angular head acceleration recorded for various activities of daily living were identified from a previously published review paper by Miller et al [ 13 ]. These authors identified the six most commonly described activities in the literature (i.e., ADLs described in more than a single paper), which consisted of walking, sitting, head nod, running, chair “plopping,” jumping down from a stair, and leaping.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this bypassing of generally accepted scientific methods, published studies of ADL accelerations, with the express intent of providing an estimate of injury risk from traumatic events such as traffic crashes, have continued to accumulate over the past two decades. At the time of the preparation of this manuscript, there have been >30 publications describing the head accelerations of everyday activities, and more than a dozen of these have compared the results to the accelerations observed during experimental crash tests as a basis for assessing the risk of injury from real world crashes [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Acceleration a Valid Proxy for Injury Risk in Minimal Damage Traffic Crashes? A Comparative Review of Volunteer, ADL and Real-World Studies

Nolet

Nordhoff

Kristman

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injury claims associated with minimal damage rear impact traffic crashes are often defended using a “biomechanical approach,” in which the occupant forces of the crash are compared to the forces of activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in the conclusion that the risk of injury from the crash is the same as for ADLs. The purpose of the present investigation is to evaluate the scientific validity of the central operating premise of the biomechanical approach to injury causation; that occupant acceleration is a scientifically valid proxy for injury risk. Data were abstracted, pooled, and compared from three categories of published literature: (1) volunteer rear impact crash testing studies, (2) ADL studies, and (3) observational studies of real-world rear impacts. We compared the occupant accelerations of minimal or no damage (i.e., 3 to 11 kph speed change or “delta V”) rear impact crash tests to the accelerations described in 6 of the most commonly reported ADLs in the reviewed studies. As a final step, the injury risk observed in real world crashes was compared to the results of the pooled crash test and ADL analyses, controlling for delta V. The results of the analyses indicated that average peak linear and angular acceleration forces observed at the head during rear impact crash tests were typically at least several times greater than average forces observed during ADLs. In contrast, the injury risk of real-world minimal damage rear impact crashes was estimated to be at least 2000 times greater than for any ADL. The results of our analysis indicate that the principle underlying the biomechanical injury causation approach, that occupant acceleration is a proxy for injury risk, is scientifically invalid. The biomechanical approach to injury causation in minimal damage crashes invariably results in the vast underestimation of the actual risk of such crashes, and should be discontinued as it is a scientifically invalid practice.

show abstract

“…5-9 16 However, a recent review illustrated that HAE magnitudes during these types of events are dependent on the wearable head sensor used to measure it, with helmet and headband-based sensors typically showing higher magnitudes than biteplate-based sensors (which could be considered similar to iMG). 22 Therefore, iMG companies will be given the option to select a higher or lower threshold. A guided assessment will be undertaken where each iMG-triggered event will be cross-referenced with the video footage and classified by a trained video analyst as either a true-positive or false-positive event.…”

Section: Research Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying head acceleration exposure via instrumented mouthguards (iMG): a validity and feasibility study protocol to inform iMG suitability for the TaCKLE project

Tierney

Weaving

Tooby

et al. 2021

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) have the potential to quantify head acceleration exposures in sport. The Rugby Football League is looking to deploy iMGs to quantify head acceleration exposures as part of the Tackle and Contact Kinematics, Loads and Exposure (TaCKLE) project. iMGs and associated software platforms are novel, thus limited validation studies exist. The aim of this paper is to describe the methods that will determine the validity (ie, laboratory validation of kinematic measures and on-field validity) and feasibility (ie, player comfort and wearability and practitioner considerations) of available iMGs for quantifying head acceleration events in rugby league. Phase 1 will determine the reliability and validity of iMG kinematic measures (peak linear acceleration, peak rotational velocity, peak rotational acceleration), based on laboratory criterion standards. Players will have three-dimensional dental scans and be provided with available iMGs for phase 2 and phase 3. Phase 2 will determine the on-field validity of iMGs (ie, identifying true positive head acceleration events during a match). Phase 3 will evaluate player perceptions of fit (too loose, too tight, bulky, small/thin, held mouth open, held teeth apart, pain in jaw muscles, uneven bite), comfort (on lips, gum, tongue, teeth) and function (speech, swallowing, dry mouth). Phase 4 will evaluate the practical feasibility of iMGs, as determined by practitioners using the system usability scale (preparing iMG system and managing iMG data). The outcome will provide a systematic and robust assessment of a range of iMGs, which will help inform the suitability of each iMG system for the TaCKLE project.

show abstract

An envelope of linear and rotational head motion during everyday activities

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

Ready for Impact? A validity and feasibility study of instrumented mouthguards (iMGs)

Ready for Impact? A validity and feasibility study of instrumented mouthguards (iMGs)

Is Acceleration a Valid Proxy for Injury Risk in Minimal Damage Traffic Crashes? A Comparative Review of Volunteer, ADL and Real-World Studies

Quantifying head acceleration exposure via instrumented mouthguards (iMG): a validity and feasibility study protocol to inform iMG suitability for the TaCKLE project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About