| Literature DB >> 29880537 |
Simon M Rosalie1,2, James M Malone1,3.
Abstract
The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile recently mandated the use of the halo frontal cockpit protection system to mitigate the risk of impact to the driver's head. Here we describe the effect of a halo-type structure on the neck muscle activity of one of the authors, who is a national-level amateur racing driver, during a full qualifying session. We found that the workload of sternocleidomastoid increased and the workload of cervical erector spinae decreased with the halo fitted which is indicative of a forward head position. Left sternocleidomastoid and right cervical erector spinae fatigued more rapidly; whereas, left cervical erector spinae fatigued more slowly. There was no change in the rate of fatigue of right sternocleidomastoid. In combination with a forward head position, this suggests an increase in lateral flexion during head rotation which may affect accuracy of navigation. Thus, drivers may need to be trained to adapt to the halo to mitigate the effects on head position and movement. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd (unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: Sports And Exercise Medicine; Statistics And Research Methods
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29880537 PMCID: PMC6040518 DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2017-224013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Case Rep ISSN: 1757-790X
Figure 1Driver’s head position during the simulation with the halo-type structure fitted showing right lateral flexion on approach to a right-hand corner.
Table of estimates of the fixed effect of the halo-type structure on muscle workload, linear rate of fatigue and the quadratic rate of fatigue
| Muscle | Parameter | b | Error | df | t |
| 95% CI | |
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| LSCM | Workload | 16.91 | 0.35 | 36 948 | 47.84 | 0.001 | 16.21 | 17.60 |
| Linear fatigue | −23.74 | 1.63 | 36 948 | −14.54 | 0.001 | −26.94 | −20.54 | |
| Quadratic fatigue | 20.14 | 1.58 | 36 948 | 12.74 | 0.001 | 17.05 | 23.24 | |
| LCES | Workload | −4.85 | 0.44 | 36 948 | −11.14 | 0.001 | −5.70 | −4.00 |
| Linear fatigue | 13.92 | 2.01 | 36 948 | 6.92 | 0.001 | 9.98 | 17.86 | |
| Quadratic fatigue | −11.28 | 1.95 | 36 948 | −5.80 | 0.001 | −15.10 | −7.47 | |
| RSCM | Workload | 13.90 | 0.38 | 36 948 | 36.72 | 0.001 | 13.16 | 14.64 |
| Linear fatigue | −3.02 | 1.75 | 36 948 | −1.73 | 0.084 | −6.45 | 0.40 | |
| Quadratic fatigue | −2.57 | 1.69 | 36 948 | −1.52 | 0.129 | −5.88 | 0.75 | |
| RCES | Workload | −6.31 | 0.36 | 36 948 | −17.67 | 0.001 | −7.01 | −5.61 |
| Linear fatigue | −14.07 | 1.65 | 36 948 | −8.53 | 0.001 | −17.30 | −10.83 | |
| Quadratic fatigue | 19.88 | 1.60 | 36 948 | 12.45 | 0.001 | 16.75 | 23.02 | |
‘b’ is the estimate of the fixed effect. ‘Error’ is the SE. ‘t’ is the t-statistic for the fixed effect. P value is the significance of the effect. ‘95% CI’ is the 95% CI for the fixed effect.
LCES, left cervical erector spinae; LSCM, left sternocleidomastoid; RCES, right cervical erector spinae; RSCM, right sternocleidomastoid.
Figure 2Conditional growth curves for LSCM (top left), RSCM (top right), LCES (bottom left) and RCES (bottom right) showing the change in NMF over time with the halo-type structure (green) and without the halo-type structure (blue). LCES, left cervical erector spinae; LSCM, left sternocleidomastoid; NMF, normalised median frequency; RCES, right cervical erector spinae; RSCM, right sternocleidomastoid.