2020
DOI: 10.1177/1754337120949061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relating on-field youth football head impacts to pneumatic ram laboratory testing procedures

Abstract: A youth-specific football helmet testing standard has been proposed to address the physical and biomechanical differences between adult and youth football players. This study sought to relate the proposed youth standard-defined laboratory impacts to on-field head impacts collected from youth football players. Head impact data from 112 youth football players (ages 9–14) were collected through the use of helmet-mounted accelerometer arrays. These head impacts were filtered to only include those that resided in c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One topic area attempted to explore the relationship between impact size and injury by measuring the impact of a header (e.g., physical measurements, survey measurements, etc.) ( Campolettano and Rowson, 2021 ; Miller et al, 2021 ). The other topic area addressed brain injury in soccer players, with a focus on pathological brain injuries such as encephalopathy, dementia, Alzheimer’s, and ADHD ( Rutherford et al, 2019 ; Didehbani et al, 2020 ; Reyes et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One topic area attempted to explore the relationship between impact size and injury by measuring the impact of a header (e.g., physical measurements, survey measurements, etc.) ( Campolettano and Rowson, 2021 ; Miller et al, 2021 ). The other topic area addressed brain injury in soccer players, with a focus on pathological brain injuries such as encephalopathy, dementia, Alzheimer’s, and ADHD ( Rutherford et al, 2019 ; Didehbani et al, 2020 ; Reyes et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%