Assessment of Ear- and Tooth-Mounted Accelerometers as Representative of Human Head Response

Christopher, John J.; Sochor, Mark; Pellettiere, Joseph A.; Salzar, Robert S.

doi:10.4271/2013-01-0805

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research confirmed skull coupling of deeply-inserted custom-fit silicone earplugs using reference sensors screwed onto the skull of a postmortem human subject (Salzar et al 2014; Christopher et al 2013). An expandable foam earplug was inserted approximately 2cm into the ear canal.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…In addition to these three sensors, the subject wore a deeply-inserted earplug as a skull reference point. Previous research confirmed skull coupling of deeplyinserted custom-fit silicone earplugs using reference sensors screwed onto the skull of a postmortem human subject (Salzar et al, 2014;Christopher et al, 2013). An expandable foam earplug was inserted approximately 20mm into the ear canal, similar to the depth at which an ear sensor in the postmortem experiment was mounted.…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In Vivo Evaluation of Wearable Head Impact Sensors

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inertial sensors are commonly used to measure human head motion.(R1–3) Some sensors have been tested with dummy or cadaver experiments with mixed results, and methods to evaluate sensors in vivo are lacking. Here we present an in vivo(R3–10) method using high speed video to test teeth-mounted (mouthguard), soft tissue-mounted (skin patch), and headgear-mounted (skull cap) sensors during 6–13g(R1–20) sagittal soccer head impacts. Sensor coupling to the skull (R1–3) was quantified by displacement from an ear-canal reference. Mouthguard displacements were within video measurement error (<1mm), while the skin patch and skull cap displaced up to 4mm and 13mm from the ear-canal reference, respectively. We used the mouthguard, which had the least displacement from skull (R1–5), as the reference to assess 6-degree-of-freedom skin patch and skull cap measurements. Linear and rotational acceleration magnitudes were over-predicted by both the skin patch (with 120% NRMS error for amag, 290% for αmag(R1–6)) and the skull cap (320% NRMS error for amag, 500% for αmag(R1–6)). Such over-predictions were largely due to out-of-plane motion. To model sensor error, we found that in-plane skin patch acceleration peaks in the anterior-posterior direction could be modeled by an underdamped viscoelastic system. In summary, the mouthguard showed tighter skull coupling than the other sensor mounting approaches(R1–7). Furthermore, the in vivo methods presented are valuable for investigating skull acceleration sensor technologies.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 75%