Patrick S Ledwidge1,2,3, Jessie N Patterson2,4, Dennis L Molfese1,2, Julie A Honaker2,4,5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. 2. Center for Brain, Biology, and Behavior, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. 3. Department of Psychology, Baldwin Wallace University, Berea, Ohio. 4. Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. 5. Cleveland Clinic, Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether oculomotor and electrophysiological measures improve the clinical performance of the typical concussion protocol for classifying collegiate athletes with a history of concussion. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University Athletic Medicine and Research Facility. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five varsity collegiate athletes. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Collegiate varsity athletes with or without a history of a diagnosed concussion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariate receiver operating curve and area under the curve (AUC) analyses tested the clinical performance of the typical concussion protocol (symptoms, postural control, neuropsychological abilities). We examined differences in clinical performance between this protocol and after adding reflexive saccade and event-related potential (ERP) indices. Hypotheses were formed after data collection. RESULTS: Significant AUCs were demonstrated for the typical concussion protocol (model 1: AUC = 0.75, P = 0.007), after adding reflexive saccade eye excursion gain (model 2: AUC = 0.80, P = 0.001), and ERPs (model 3: AUC = 0.79, P = 0.002). The AUC for reflexive saccades and ERPs was significant (model 4: AUC = 0.70, P = 0.030). Model 2's increased clinical performance compared with model 1 was nonsignificant, χ(2) = 1.871, P = 0.171. CONCLUSIONS: All 4 models demonstrated adequate sensitivity and specificity for classifying athletes with a previous concussion. Adding reflexive saccades and ERPs did not significantly increase clinical performance of the typical concussion protocol. Future research should determine the clinical utility of saccades and ERPs for acute postconcussion assessments.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether oculomotor and electrophysiological measures improve the clinical performance of the typical concussion protocol for classifying collegiate athletes with a history of concussion. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University Athletic Medicine and Research Facility. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five varsity collegiate athletes. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Collegiate varsity athletes with or without a history of a diagnosed concussion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariate receiver operating curve and area under the curve (AUC) analyses tested the clinical performance of the typical concussion protocol (symptoms, postural control, neuropsychological abilities). We examined differences in clinical performance between this protocol and after adding reflexive saccade and event-related potential (ERP) indices. Hypotheses were formed after data collection. RESULTS: Significant AUCs were demonstrated for the typical concussion protocol (model 1: AUC = 0.75, P = 0.007), after adding reflexive saccade eye excursion gain (model 2: AUC = 0.80, P = 0.001), and ERPs (model 3: AUC = 0.79, P = 0.002). The AUC for reflexive saccades and ERPs was significant (model 4: AUC = 0.70, P = 0.030). Model 2's increased clinical performance compared with model 1 was nonsignificant, χ(2) = 1.871, P = 0.171. CONCLUSIONS: All 4 models demonstrated adequate sensitivity and specificity for classifying athletes with a previous concussion. Adding reflexive saccades and ERPs did not significantly increase clinical performance of the typical concussion protocol. Future research should determine the clinical utility of saccades and ERPs for acute postconcussion assessments.
Authors: Louis De Beaumont; Hugo Théoret; David Mongeon; Julie Messier; Suzanne Leclerc; Sébastien Tremblay; Dave Ellemberg; Maryse Lassonde Journal: Brain Date: 2009-01-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Kimberly G Harmon; Jonathan Drezner; Matthew Gammons; Kevin Guskiewicz; Mark Halstead; Stan Herring; Jeff Kutcher; Andrea Pana; Margot Putukian; William Roberts Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem H Meeuwisse; Mark Aubry; Bob Cantu; Jirí Dvorák; Ruben J Echemendia; Lars Engebretsen; Karen Johnston; Jeffrey S Kutcher; Martin Raftery; Allen Sills; Brian W Benson; Gavin A Davis; Richard G Ellenbogen; Kevin Guskiewicz; Stanley A Herring; Grant L Iverson; Barry D Jordan; James Kissick; Michael McCrea; Andrew S McIntosh; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Laura Purcell; Margot Putukian; Kathryn Schneider; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Steven P Broglio; Robert C Cantu; Gerard A Gioia; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Jeffrey Kutcher; Michael Palm; Tamara C Valovich McLeod Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Marcus H Heitger; Tim J Anderson; Richard D Jones; John C Dalrymple-Alford; Chris M Frampton; Michael W Ardagh Journal: Brain Date: 2004-01-21 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Virginia T Gallagher; Prianka Murthy; Jane Stocks; Brian Vesci; Danielle Colegrove; Jeffrey Mjaanes; Yufen Chen; Hans Breiter; Cynthia LaBella; Amy A Herrold; James L Reilly Journal: Neurotrauma Rep Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: Georgia F Symons; Meaghan Clough; Steven Mutimer; Brendan P Major; William T O'Brien; Daniel Costello; Stuart J McDonald; Zhibin Chen; Owen White; Richelle Mychasiuk; Meng Law; David K Wright; Terence J O'Brien; Joanne Fielding; Scott C Kolbe; Sandy R Shultz Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2021-09-14