CONTEXT: Instrumented helmets have been used to estimate impact acceleration imparted to the head during helmet impacts. These instrumented helmets may not accurately measure the actual amount of acceleration experienced by the head due to factors such as helmet-to-head fit. OBJECTIVE: To determine if an accelerometer attached to a mouthpiece (MP) provides a more accurate representation of headform center of gravity (HFCOG) acceleration during impact than does an accelerometer attached to a helmet fitted on the headform. DESIGN: Single-factor research design in which the independent variable was accelerometer position (HFCOG, helmet, MP) and the dependent variables were g and Severity Index (SI). SETTING: Independent impact research laboratory. INTERVENTION(S): The helmeted headform was dropped (n = 168) using a National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) drop system from the standard heights and impact sites according to NOCSAE test standards. Peak g and SI were measured for each accelerometer position during impact. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Upon impact, the peak g and SI were recorded for each accelerometer location. RESULTS: Strong relationships were noted for HFCOG and MP measures, and significant differences were seen between HFCOG and helmet g measures and HFCOG and helmet SI measures. No statistically significant differences were noted between HFCOG and MP g and SI measures. Regression analyses showed a significant relationship between HFCOG and MP measures but not between HFCOG and helmet measures. CONCLUSIONS: Upon impact, MP acceleration (g) and SI measurements were closely related to and more accurate in measuring HFCOG g and SI than helmet measurements. The MP accelerometer is a valid method for measuring head acceleration.
CONTEXT: Instrumented helmets have been used to estimate impact acceleration imparted to the head during helmet impacts. These instrumented helmets may not accurately measure the actual amount of acceleration experienced by the head due to factors such as helmet-to-head fit. OBJECTIVE: To determine if an accelerometer attached to a mouthpiece (MP) provides a more accurate representation of headform center of gravity (HFCOG) acceleration during impact than does an accelerometer attached to a helmet fitted on the headform. DESIGN: Single-factor research design in which the independent variable was accelerometer position (HFCOG, helmet, MP) and the dependent variables were g and Severity Index (SI). SETTING: Independent impact research laboratory. INTERVENTION(S): The helmeted headform was dropped (n = 168) using a National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) drop system from the standard heights and impact sites according to NOCSAE test standards. Peak g and SI were measured for each accelerometer position during impact. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Upon impact, the peak g and SI were recorded for each accelerometer location. RESULTS: Strong relationships were noted for HFCOG and MP measures, and significant differences were seen between HFCOG and helmet g measures and HFCOG and helmet SI measures. No statistically significant differences were noted between HFCOG and MP g and SI measures. Regression analyses showed a significant relationship between HFCOG and MP measures but not between HFCOG and helmet measures. CONCLUSIONS: Upon impact, MP acceleration (g) and SI measurements were closely related to and more accurate in measuring HFCOG g and SI than helmet measurements. The MP accelerometer is a valid method for measuring head acceleration.
Authors: James H Brennan; Biswadev Mitra; Anneliese Synnot; Joanne McKenzie; Catherine Willmott; Andrew S McIntosh; Jerome J Maller; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Fidel Hernandez; Lyndia C Wu; Michael C Yip; Kaveh Laksari; Andrew R Hoffman; Jaime R Lopez; Gerald A Grant; Svein Kleiven; David B Camarillo Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Lee Gabler; Declan Patton; Mark Begonia; Ray Daniel; Ahmad Rezaei; Colin Huber; Gunter Siegmund; Tyler Rooks; Lyndia Wu Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 4.219
Authors: Lyndia C Wu; Vaibhav Nangia; Kevin Bui; Bradley Hammoor; Mehmet Kurt; Fidel Hernandez; Calvin Kuo; David B Camarillo Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Ryan T Tierney; Michael Higgins; Shane V Caswell; Jessica Brady; Krista McHardy; Jeffrey B Driban; Kurosh Darvish Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2008 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Kelly Sarmiento; Dana Waltzman; Owen Devine; Xinjian Zhang; Lara DePadilla; Marcie-Jo Kresnow; Kelley Borradaile; Andrew Hurwitz; David Jones; Ravi Goyal; Matthew J Breiding Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 7.010
Authors: Andrea M Rich; Tanner M Filben; Logan E Miller; Brian T Tomblin; Aaron R Van Gorkom; Michael A Hurst; Ryan T Barnard; Dena S Kohn; Jillian E Urban; Joel D Stitzel Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 4.219