Jaclyn B Caccese1, Fernando V Santos2, Felipe K Yamaguchi3, Thomas A Buckley3, John J Jeka3. 1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, 453 W. 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. jaclyn.caccese@osumc.edu. 2. Bertec Corporation, Columbus, OH, 43219, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology & Applied Physiology and Interdisciplinary Biomechanics and Movement Science Program, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19713, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how concussion may impair sensory processing for control of upright stance. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a single university into 3 groups: 13 participants (8 women, 21 ± 3 years) between 2 weeks and 6 months post-injury who initiated a return-to-play progression (under physician management) by the time of testing (recent concussion group), 12 participants (7 women, 21 ± 1 years) with a history of concussion (concussion history group, > 1 year post-injury), and 26 participants (8 women, 22 ± 3 years) with no concussion history (control group). We assessed sensory reweighting by simultaneously perturbing participants' visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive systems and computed center of mass gain relative to each modality. The visual stimulus was a sinusoidal translation of the visual scene at 0.2 Hz, the vestibular stimulus was ± 1 mA binaural monopolar galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) at 0.36 Hz, the proprioceptive stimulus was Achilles' tendon vibration at 0.28 Hz. RESULTS: The recent concussion (95% confidence interval 0.078-0.115, p = 0.001) and the concussion history (95% confidence interval 0.056-0.094, p = 0.038) groups had higher gains to the vestibular stimulus than the control group (95% confidence interval 0.040-0.066). The recent concussion (95% confidence interval 0.795-1.159, p = 0.002) and the concussion history (95% confidence interval 0.633-1.012, p = 0.018) groups had higher gains to the visual stimulus than the control group (95% confidence interval 0.494-0.752). There were no group differences in gains to the proprioceptive stimulus or in sensory reweighting. CONCLUSION: Following concussion, participants responded more strongly to visual and vestibular stimuli during upright stance, suggesting they may have abnormal dependence on visual and vestibular feedback. These findings may indicate an area for targeted rehabilitation interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how concussion may impair sensory processing for control of upright stance. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a single university into 3 groups: 13 participants (8 women, 21 ± 3 years) between 2 weeks and 6 months post-injury who initiated a return-to-play progression (under physician management) by the time of testing (recent concussion group), 12 participants (7 women, 21 ± 1 years) with a history of concussion (concussion history group, > 1 year post-injury), and 26 participants (8 women, 22 ± 3 years) with no concussion history (control group). We assessed sensory reweighting by simultaneously perturbing participants' visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive systems and computed center of mass gain relative to each modality. The visual stimulus was a sinusoidal translation of the visual scene at 0.2 Hz, the vestibular stimulus was ± 1 mA binaural monopolar galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) at 0.36 Hz, the proprioceptive stimulus was Achilles' tendon vibration at 0.28 Hz. RESULTS: The recent concussion (95% confidence interval 0.078-0.115, p = 0.001) and the concussion history (95% confidence interval 0.056-0.094, p = 0.038) groups had higher gains to the vestibular stimulus than the control group (95% confidence interval 0.040-0.066). The recent concussion (95% confidence interval 0.795-1.159, p = 0.002) and the concussion history (95% confidence interval 0.633-1.012, p = 0.018) groups had higher gains to the visual stimulus than the control group (95% confidence interval 0.494-0.752). There were no group differences in gains to the proprioceptive stimulus or in sensory reweighting. CONCLUSION: Following concussion, participants responded more strongly to visual and vestibular stimuli during upright stance, suggesting they may have abnormal dependence on visual and vestibular feedback. These findings may indicate an area for targeted rehabilitation interventions.
Authors: Tyler A Wood; Katherine L Hsieh; Ruopeng An; Randy A Ballard; Jacob J Sosnoff Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Michael McCrea; Steven Broglio; Thomas McAllister; Wenxian Zhou; Shi Zhao; Barry Katz; Maria Kudela; Jaroslaw Harezlak; Lindsay Nelson; Timothy Meier; Stephen William Marshall; Kevin M Guskiewicz Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Jessie R Oldham; Melissa S Difabio; Thomas W Kaminski; Ryan M Dewolf; David R Howell; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Joshua Kamins; Erin Bigler; Tracey Covassin; Luke Henry; Simon Kemp; John J Leddy; Andrew Mayer; Michael McCrea; Mayumi Prins; Kathryn J Schneider; Tamara C Valovich McLeod; Roger Zemek; Christopher C Giza Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Peter C Fino; Lee E Dibble; Elisabeth A Wilde; Nora F Fino; Paula Johnson; Melissa M Cortez; Colby R Hansen; Susanne M van der Veen; Karen M Skop; J Kent Werner; David F Tate; Harvey S Levin; Mary Jo V Pugh; William C Walker Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 11.800