ObjectivesAssess the validity and feasibility of current instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) and associated systems.MethodsPhase I; four iMG systems (Biocore-Football Research Inc (FRI), HitIQ, ORB, Prevent) were compared against dummy headform laboratory criterion standards (25, 50, 75, 100 g). Phase II; four iMG systems were evaluated for on-field validity of iMG-triggered events against video-verification to determine true-positives, false-positives and false-negatives (20±9 player matches per iMG). Phase III; four iMG systems were evaluated by 18 rugby players, for perceptions of fit, comfort and function. Phase IV; three iMG systems (Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, Prevent) were evaluated for practical feasibility (System Usability Scale (SUS)) by four practitioners.ResultsPhase I; total concordance correlation coefficients were 0.986, 0.965, 0.525 and 0.984 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase II; different on-field kinematics were observed between iMGs. Positive predictive values were 0.98, 0.90, 0.53 and 0.94 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Sensitivity values were 0.51, 0.40, 0.71 and 0.75 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase III; player perceptions of fit, comfort and function were 77%, 6/10, 55% for Biocore-FRI, 88%, 8/10, 61% for HitIQ, 65%, 5/10, 43% for ORB and 85%, 8/10, 67% for Prevent. Phase IV; SUS (preparation-management) was 51.3–50.6/100, 71.3–78.8/100 and 83.8–80.0/100 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ and Prevent.ConclusionThis study shows differences between current iMG systems exist. Sporting organisations can use these findings when evaluating which iMG system is most appropriate to monitor head acceleration events in athletes, supporting player welfare initiatives related to concussion and head acceleration exposure.

Instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) have the potential to quantify head acceleration exposures in sport. The Rugby Football League is looking to deploy iMGs to quantify head acceleration exposures as part of the Tackle and Contact Kinematics, Loads and Exposure (TaCKLE) project. iMGs and associated software platforms are novel, thus limited validation studies exist. The aim of this paper is to describe the methods that will determine the validity (ie, laboratory validation of kinematic measures and on-field validity) and feasibility (ie, player comfort and wearability and practitioner considerations) of available iMGs for quantifying head acceleration events in rugby league. Phase 1 will determine the reliability and validity of iMG kinematic measures (peak linear acceleration, peak rotational velocity, peak rotational acceleration), based on laboratory criterion standards. Players will have three-dimensional dental scans and be provided with available iMGs for phase 2 and phase 3. Phase 2 will determine the on-field validity of iMGs (ie, identifying true positive head acceleration events during a match). Phase 3 will evaluate player perceptions of fit (too loose, too tight, bulky, small/thin, held mouth open, held teeth apart, pain in jaw muscles, uneven bite), comfort (on lips, gum, tongue, teeth) and function (speech, swallowing, dry mouth). Phase 4 will evaluate the practical feasibility of iMGs, as determined by practitioners using the system usability scale (preparing iMG system and managing iMG data). The outcome will provide a systematic and robust assessment of a range of iMGs, which will help inform the suitability of each iMG system for the TaCKLE project.

Instrumented mouthguards (iMG) were used to collect head acceleration events (HAE) in men’s professional rugby league matches. Peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak angular acceleration (PAA) and peak change in angular velocity (ΔPAV) were collected using custom-fit iMG set with a 5 g single iMG-axis recording threshold. iMG were fitted to ten male Super League players for thirty-one player matches. Video analysis was conducted on HAE to identify the contact event; impacted player; tackle stage and head loading type. A total of 1622 video-verified HAE were recorded. Approximately three-quarters of HAE (75.7%) occurred below 10 g. Most (98.2%) HAE occurred during tackles (59.3% to tackler; 40.7% to ball carrier) and the initial collision stage of the tackle (43.9%). The initial collision stage resulted in significantly greater PAA and ΔPAV than secondary contact and play the ball tackle stages (p < 0.001). Indirect HAE accounted for 29.8% of HAE and resulted in significantly greater ΔPAV (p < 0.001) than direct HAE, but significantly lower PLA (p < 0.001). Almost all HAE were sustained in the tackle, with the majority occurring during the initial collision stage, making it an area of focus for the development of player protection strategies for both ball carriers and tacklers. League-wide and community-level implementation of iMG could enable a greater understanding of head acceleration exposure between playing positions, cohorts, and levels of play.

Objectives Determine the validity and feasibility of current Instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) and associated systems. Methods Phase 1; Four iMG systems (Football Research Inc [FRI], HitIQ, ORB, Prevent) were compared against dummy headform laboratory criterion standards (25, 50, 75, 100 g). Phase 2; Four iMG systems were evaluated for on-field validity of iMG-triggered events against video-verification to determine true-positives, false-positives and false-negatives (20 SD 9 player matches per iMG). Phase 3; Four iMG systems were evaluated by eighteen rugby players, for perceptions of fit, comfort and function. Phase 4; Three iMG systems (FRI, HitIQ, Prevent) were evaluated for practical feasibility (system usability scale; SUS) by four practitioners. Results Phase 1; Total concordance correlation coefficient was 98.3%, 95.3%, 42.5% and 97.9% for FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase 2; Different on-field kinematics were observed between iMGs. Positive predictive values were 0.98, 0.90, 0.53 and 0.94 for FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Sensitivity values were 0.51, 0.40, 0.71 and 0.75 for FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase 3; player perceptions of fit, comfort and function were 77%, 6/10, 55% for FRI, 88%, 8/10, 61% for HitIQ, 65%, 5/10, 43% for ORB, and 85%, 8/10, 67% for Prevent. Phase 4; SUS was 51.3-50.6/100, 71.3-78.8/100, and 83.8-80.0/100 for FRI, HitIQ, and Prevent. Conclusion This study shows that differences between current iMG systems exist. Sporting organisations can use these findings to ensure accurate head acceleration event data are obtained and system adoption is optimized, to support player welfare initiatives directly related to long-term brain health.