SIGNIFICANCE: Concussions are complex injuries that require a multifaceted testing battery. Vision impairments are common after concussion, but it is unknown exactly how eye tracking may be affected after injury and how it is associated with other clinical concussion assessments. PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) examine the relationship between eye tracking performance (BOX score) and other common concussion evaluations, (2) identify if eye tracking adds novel information that augments baseline concussion evaluations, and (3) examine the effect of age, concussion history, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on eye tracking and other ophthalmological measures. METHODS: A total of 102 male high school football athletes (age, 16.0 years; 95% confidence interval, 15.8 to 16.2 years) completed a series of visual and neurocognitive tests during their pre-season baseline assessment. The main outcome measures were BOX score, near point of convergence (NPC) distance, binocular accommodative amplitude (BAA) distance, Standardized Assessment of Concussion score, and Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing composite scores. RESULTS: BOX score was not significantly associated with symptoms, Standardized Assessment of Concussion score, NPC distance, BAA distance, or any Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing composite scores. Age, concussion history, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and number of prior years playing football were not significantly associated with BOX score or NPC distance, but there was a significant association between concussion history and greater BAA distance (β = 1.60; 95% confidence interval = 0.19 to 3.01; P < .03). The BOX score cutoff of 10 resulted in a 12% false-positive rate. CONCLUSIONS: Eye tracking was not significantly associated with the commonly used clinical concussion assessments. These results suggest that an objective eye tracking variable may be a valuable addition to the current concussion battery.
SIGNIFICANCE: Concussions are complex injuries that require a multifaceted testing battery. Vision impairments are common after concussion, but it is unknown exactly how eye tracking may be affected after injury and how it is associated with other clinical concussion assessments. PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) examine the relationship between eye tracking performance (BOX score) and other common concussion evaluations, (2) identify if eye tracking adds novel information that augments baseline concussion evaluations, and (3) examine the effect of age, concussion history, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on eye tracking and other ophthalmological measures. METHODS: A total of 102 male high school football athletes (age, 16.0 years; 95% confidence interval, 15.8 to 16.2 years) completed a series of visual and neurocognitive tests during their pre-season baseline assessment. The main outcome measures were BOX score, near point of convergence (NPC) distance, binocular accommodative amplitude (BAA) distance, Standardized Assessment of Concussion score, and Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing composite scores. RESULTS: BOX score was not significantly associated with symptoms, Standardized Assessment of Concussion score, NPC distance, BAA distance, or any Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing composite scores. Age, concussion history, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and number of prior years playing football were not significantly associated with BOX score or NPC distance, but there was a significant association between concussion history and greater BAA distance (β = 1.60; 95% confidence interval = 0.19 to 3.01; P < .03). The BOX score cutoff of 10 resulted in a 12% false-positive rate. CONCLUSIONS: Eye tracking was not significantly associated with the commonly used clinical concussion assessments. These results suggest that an objective eye tracking variable may be a valuable addition to the current concussion battery.
Authors: Julianne D Schmidt; Johna K Register-Mihalik; Jason P Mihalik; Zachary Y Kerr; Kevin M Guskiewicz Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Thayne A Munce; Jason C Dorman; Paul A Thompson; Verle D Valentine; Michael F Bergeron Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem Meeuwisse; Jiří Dvořák; Mark Aubry; Julian Bailes; Steven Broglio; Robert C Cantu; David Cassidy; Ruben J Echemendia; Rudy J Castellani; Gavin A Davis; Richard Ellenbogen; Carolyn Emery; Lars Engebretsen; Nina Feddermann-Demont; Christopher C Giza; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stanley Herring; Grant L Iverson; Karen M Johnston; James Kissick; Jeffrey Kutcher; John J Leddy; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Geoff T Manley; Michael McCrea; William P Meehan; Shinji Nagahiro; Jon Patricios; Margot Putukian; Kathryn J Schneider; Allen Sills; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner; Pieter E Vos Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: David R Howell; Jessie R Oldham; William P Meehan; Melissa S DiFabio; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Aparna Raghuram; Susan A Cotter; Sowjanya Gowrisankaran; Jameel Kanji; David R Howell; William P Meehan; Ankoor S Shah Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Christine M Baugh; Emily Kroshus; Julie M Stamm; Daniel H Daneshvar; Michael J Pepin; William P Meehan Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 6.202