Virginia Gallagher1, Brian Vesci2, Jeffrey Mjaanes2, Hans Breiter1,3, Yufen Chen4, Amy Herrold1,5, James Reilly1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Sports Medicine, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois, USA. 3. Warren Wright Adolescent Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Center for Translational Imaging, Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Research Health Scientist, Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital , Hines IL, Oregon, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most post-concussion eye movement (EM) research involves predominantly male samples. We evaluated pro- (PRO; reflexive shift of visual attention to target) and anti- (ANTI; executive control of visual attention away from target) computer-based saccade task performance among female, collegiate athletes with recent concussion (CON) versus healthy-control athletes (HC). We evaluated the relationship between EM performance and post-concussion outcomes. We hypothesized ANTI performance would differ among CON and HC due to greater executive control demands, and that EM performance (both tasks) would be associated with clinical outcomes in CON. METHODS: 16 CON (assessed 4-10 days post-injury [M = 6.87, SD = 2.15 days]) and 16 age-matched HC athletes were recruited. General linear mixed modeling and Pearson's correlations were used. RESULTS: On ANTI, CON demonstrated higher error rate [F(1,2863) = 12.650, p<.001] and shorter latency on error trials [F(1,469) = 5.976, p=.015] relative to HC. Multiple EM measures were associated with clinical outcomes: PRO duration predicted days to symptom remission (r=.44, p <.05); ANTI error rate was associated with symptom burden on the day of testing (r=.27, p <.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates promising utility of EM measures to detect cognitive control and sensorimotor effects of concussion among female athletes and their use as a prognostic indicators of recovery.
BACKGROUND: Most post-concussion eye movement (EM) research involves predominantly male samples. We evaluated pro- (PRO; reflexive shift of visual attention to target) and anti- (ANTI; executive control of visual attention away from target) computer-based saccade task performance among female, collegiate athletes with recent concussion (CON) versus healthy-control athletes (HC). We evaluated the relationship between EM performance and post-concussion outcomes. We hypothesized ANTI performance would differ among CON and HC due to greater executive control demands, and that EM performance (both tasks) would be associated with clinical outcomes in CON. METHODS: 16 CON (assessed 4-10 days post-injury [M = 6.87, SD = 2.15 days]) and 16 age-matched HC athletes were recruited. General linear mixed modeling and Pearson's correlations were used. RESULTS: On ANTI, CON demonstrated higher error rate [F(1,2863) = 12.650, p<.001] and shorter latency on error trials [F(1,469) = 5.976, p=.015] relative to HC. Multiple EM measures were associated with clinical outcomes: PRO duration predicted days to symptom remission (r=.44, p <.05); ANTI error rate was associated with symptom burden on the day of testing (r=.27, p <.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates promising utility of EM measures to detect cognitive control and sensorimotor effects of concussion among female athletes and their use as a prognostic indicators of recovery.
Authors: Linda Carter Sobell; Sangeeta Agrawal; Mark B Sobell; Gloria I Leo; Lisa Johnson Young; John A Cunningham; Edward R Simco Journal: J Stud Alcohol Date: 2003-11
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: David R Howell; Michael J OʼBrien; Aparna Raghuram; Ankoor S Shah; William P Meehan Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Mark R Lovell; Grant L Iverson; Michael W Collins; Kenneth Podell; Karen M Johnston; Dustin Pardini; Jamie Pardini; John Norwig; Joseph C Maroon Journal: Appl Neuropsychol Date: 2006
Authors: James L Reilly; Margret S H Harris; Tin T Khine; Matcheri S Keshavan; John A Sweeney Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: James L Reilly; Kyle Frankovich; Scot Hill; Elliot S Gershon; Richard S E Keefe; Matcheri S Keshavan; Godfrey D Pearlson; Carol A Tamminga; John A Sweeney Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 9.306