John C Criscione1, Mark W Kroll. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Law enforcement officers expect that a TASER(®) CEW (Conducted Electrical Weapon) broad-spread probe exposure will temporarily incapacitate a subject who will then be able to immediately (~1 s delay) recover motor control in order to comply with commands. However, this recovery time has not been previously reported. METHODS: A total of 32 police academy students were exposed to a very broad-spread 5 s CEW stimulus as part of their training and told to depress a push-button as soon as they sensed the stimulus. A subgroup also depressed the push-button after being alerted by an audio stimulus. RESULTS: The response time after the audio trigger was 1.05 ± 0.25 s; the median was 1.04 s (range 0.69-1.34 s). For the paired CEW triggered group the mean response time was 1.41 ± 0.61 s with a median of 1.06 s (range 0.92-2.18 s), which was not statistically different. Only 2/32 subjects were able to depress the button during the CEW exposure and with delays of 3.09 and 4.70 s from the start. Of the remaining 30 subjects the mean response time to execute the task (once the CEW exposure ended) was 1.27 ± 0.58 s with a median of 1.19 s (range 0.31-2.99 s) (NS vs. the audio trigger). CONCLUSIONS: With a very-broad electrode spread, a CEW exposure could prevent or delay some purposeful movements. Normal reaction times appear to return immediately (~1 s) after the CEW exposure ceases.
PURPOSE: Law enforcement officers expect that a TASER(®) CEW (Conducted Electrical Weapon) broad-spread probe exposure will temporarily incapacitate a subject who will then be able to immediately (~1 s delay) recover motor control in order to comply with commands. However, this recovery time has not been previously reported. METHODS: A total of 32 police academy students were exposed to a very broad-spread 5 s CEW stimulus as part of their training and told to depress a push-button as soon as they sensed the stimulus. A subgroup also depressed the push-button after being alerted by an audio stimulus. RESULTS: The response time after the audio trigger was 1.05 ± 0.25 s; the median was 1.04 s (range 0.69-1.34 s). For the paired CEW triggered group the mean response time was 1.41 ± 0.61 s with a median of 1.06 s (range 0.92-2.18 s), which was not statistically different. Only 2/32 subjects were able to depress the button during the CEW exposure and with delays of 3.09 and 4.70 s from the start. Of the remaining 30 subjects the mean response time to execute the task (once the CEW exposure ended) was 1.27 ± 0.58 s with a median of 1.19 s (range 0.31-2.99 s) (NS vs. the audio trigger). CONCLUSIONS: With a very-broad electrode spread, a CEW exposure could prevent or delay some purposeful movements. Normal reaction times appear to return immediately (~1 s) after the CEW exposure ceases.
Authors: Jeffrey D Ho; Donald M Dawes; Robert F Reardon; Seth R Strote; Sebastian N Kunz; Rebecca S Nelson; Erik J Lundin; Benjamin S Orozco; James R Miner Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2011-01-30 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Gary M Vilke; Christian Sloane; Saul Levine; Tom Neuman; Edward Castillo; Theodore C Chan Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Christian M Sloane; Theodore C Chan; Saul D Levine; James V Dunford; Tom Neuman; Gary M Vilke Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Jeffrey Ho; Donald Dawes; James Miner; Sebastian Kunz; Rebecca Nelson; James Sweeney Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Donald M Dawes; Jeffrey D Ho; Andrea S Vincent; Paul C Nystrom; Johanna C Moore; Lila W Steinberg; Anne Marie K Tilton; Michael A Brave; Marc S Berris; James R Miner Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Gary M Vilke; Christian M Sloane; Katie D Bouton; Fred W Kolkhorst; Saul D Levine; Tom S Neuman; Edward M Castillo; Theodore C Chan Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2007-08-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Donald M Dawes; Jeffrey D Ho; Mark A Johnson; Erik Lundin; Timothy A Janchar; James R Miner Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 2.395