The effects of protective helmet use on physiology and cognition in young cricketers

Abstract

Many studies have reported physiological and cognitive decrements following heat stress. Of particular concern in cricket are the possible negative effects of sustained protective helmet use, as this leads to an increase in heat-related stress. Correct and rapid decision making, and focused attention are essential for efficient performance whilst batting, and it is possible that helmet usage could impair such processes. In a repeated-measures, randomized crossover study, physiological, self-report, and cognitive measures were taken from 16 teenage cricketers before and after moderately intense (batting) exercise. Participants underwent the assessments twice, once while wearing a standard protective helmet, and again, when not wearing a helmet (counterbalanced). While helmet use did not lead to significant physiological changes, wearing a helmet led to some cognitive impairments in attention, vigilance and reaction times. These preliminary findings could have significance for cognitively demanding sports (and perhaps military and industrial settings) in which participants perform cognitively demanding operations under conditions of physical exercise whilst wearing protective helmets. Additional factors of hydration, exercise duration, and helmet design are discussed.

The Influence of Tropical Climate on Cognitive Task Performance and Aiming Accuracy in Young International Fencers

“…The small number of participants is a limitation of this study, but one that is difficult to overcome when the sample is international athletes. Our sample was similar to those in many studies of young or elite athletes (Neave et al, 2004;Périard et al, 2014), particularly in fencing (Devienne, Ripoll, Audiffren, & Stein, 2000;Williams & Walmsley, 2000). Moreover, every year, only 15 young fencers competing at the national or international level are accepted into the French Caribbean Fencing Pole.…”

The effect of a helmet on cognitive performance is, at worst, marginal: A controlled laboratory study

“…The former study used a simple arithmetic addition task, whereas the latter used a simple reaction time task. In contrast, the two other studies mentioned in the Introduction reported at least one measured cognitive parameter being affected by wearing a helmet (Hancock and Dirkin, 1982;Neave et al, 2004). Hancock and Dirkin (1982) used a central and peripheral visual choice reaction time, whereas Neave et al (2004) used an extensive proprietary cognitive test battery.…”

“…In contrast, the two other studies mentioned in the Introduction reported at least one measured cognitive parameter being affected by wearing a helmet (Hancock and Dirkin, 1982;Neave et al, 2004). Hancock and Dirkin (1982) used a central and peripheral visual choice reaction time, whereas Neave et al (2004) used an extensive proprietary cognitive test battery. This pattern of findings across the four earlier studies could suggests that any effect of wearing a helmet is sufficiently subtle that it can only be seen when people's cognitive resources are highly taxed.…”

“…One of these studies found increased reaction times on a dual task while wearing the helmet (Hancock and Dirkin, 1982). A more recent study found a negative effect on cognitive performance of wearing a cricket helmet during cricket practice (Neave et al, 2004). In contrast to these two studies, which showed an effect of headgear, on at least one of the cognitive parameters investigated, the other two found no effect of helmet wearing (Hancock, 1983;Holt and Brainard, 1976).…”

The physiological demands of horseback mustering when wearing an equestrian helmet

“…However, it appears that neither exogenous heat penetration nor metabolic heat dissipation are covered within the relevant standards for protective headwear, including Wre helmets. Thus, with few exceptions (Armstrong et al 2002;Brühwiler 2007;Holland et al 2002;Neave et al 2004), the thermodynamics and physiological impact of many forms of protective helmets have not been thoroughly evaluated.…”