Response of an Impact Test Apparatus for Fall Protective Headgear Testing Using a Hybrid-III Head/Neck Assembly

Caccese, Vincent; Ferguson, John C.; Lloyd, John D.; Edgecomb, M.; Seidi, Morteza; Hajiaghamemar, Marzieh

doi:10.1007/s40799-016-0046-4

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…40 In our study, low velocity impacts at both locations resulted in baseline g max values (mean (SD) = 411.9 (87.8) g) in excess of Zhang et al's 80% mTBI probability threshold. While our test system was likely stiffer than actual human head and neck segments, our low velocity g max values were within 20% of Caccese et al 41 who incorporated a Hybrid III neckform into their test system and performed head impact trials at 3.58 m/s (g max = 422 g and 410 g for their back and front of Table 3. Product rankings based on g max in the three impact orientations; each product rated within impact orientation, and ultimately ranked overall (R overall ) based on the sum of the three orientation-specific ranks.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…40 In our study, low velocity impacts at both locations resulted in baseline g max values (mean (SD) = 411.9 (87.8) g) in excess of Zhang et al’s 80% mTBI probability threshold. While our test system was likely stiffer than actual human head and neck segments, our low velocity g max values were within 20% of Caccese et al 41 who incorporated a Hybrid III neckform into their test system and performed head impact trials at 3.58 m/s ( g max = 422 g and 410 g for their back and front of head conditions, respectively). The current findings do generally support that the older adult falls on which we modelled our 3.5 m/s impact velocity 37,40 were associated with substantial impact loads, and correspond to the high incidence of fall-related concussions and mTBI observed clinically in older adults.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact attenuation provided by older adult protective headwear products during simulated fall-related head impacts

Martel

Tanel

Laing

2021

Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineerin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction While protective headwear products (PHP) are designed to protect older adults from fall-related head injuries, there are limited data on their protective capacity. This study’s goal was to assess the impact attenuation provided by commercially available PHP during simulated head impacts. Methods A drop tower and Hybrid III headform measured the decrease in peak linear acceleration ( g atten) provided by 12 PHP for front- and back-of-head impacts at low (clinically relevant: 3.5 m/s) and high (5.7 m/s) impact velocities. Results The range of g atten across PHP was larger at the low velocity (56% and 41% for back and frontal impacts, respectively) vs. high velocity condition (27% and 38% for back and frontal impacts, respectively). A significant interaction between impact location and velocity was observed ( p < .05), with significantly greater g atten for back-of-head compared to front-of-head impacts at the low impact velocity (19% mean difference). While not significant, there was a modest positive association between g atten and product padding thickness for back-of-head impacts ( p = .095; r = 0.349). Conclusion This study demonstrates the wide range in impact attenuation across commercially available PHP, and suggests that existing products provide greater impact attenuation during back-of-head impacts. These data may inform evidence-based decisions for clinicians and consumers and help drive industry innovation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Impact attenuation provided by older adult protective headwear products during simulated fall-related head impacts

Martel

Tanel

Laing

2021

Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineerin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rotational Injury Criterion (RIC) 12,42 is the rotational acceleration equivalent of HIC and is defined as,…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six Degree-of-Freedom Measurements of Human Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This preliminary study investigated whether direct measurement of head rotation improves prediction of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Although many studies have implicated rotation as a primary cause of mTBI, regulatory safety standards use 3 degree of freedom (3DOF) translation-only kinematic criteria to predict injury. Direct 6DOF measurements of human head rotation (3DOF) and translation (3DOF) have not been previously available to examine whether additional DOFs improve injury prediction. We measured head impacts in American football, boxing, and mixed martial arts using 6DOF instrumented mouthguards, and predicted clinician-diagnosed injury using 12 existing kinematic criteria and 6 existing brain finite element (FE) criteria. Among 513 measured impacts were the first two 6DOF measurements of clinically-diagnosed mTBI. For this dataset, 6DOF criteria were most predictive of injury, more than 3DOF translation-only and 3DOF rotation-only criteria. Peak principal strain in the corpus callosum, a 6DOF FE criteria, was the strongest predictor, followed by two criteria that included rotation measurements, peak rotational acceleration magnitude and Head Impact Power (HIP). These results suggest head rotation measurements may improve injury prediction. However, more 6DOF data is needed to confirm this evaluation of existing injury criteria, and to develop new criteria that considers directional sensitivity to injury.

show abstract

“…It is now known that many brain injuries, such as diffuse axonal injury and subdural haematoma, correlate with the rotational response of the head in an impact [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Since many current headgear impact testing standards neither measure nor allow rotation of the surrogate head, some researchers have asserted that these standards inadequately represent most real helmeted head impacts and thus have limited applicability for evaluating brain injury risk [2,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Many new impact test methods are emerging in headgear research, based on both recreating specific brain injury mechanisms and head impact scenarios that more closely resemble injurious events in sports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Impact Testing Methods for Headgear in Sports: Considerations for Improved Prevention of Head Injury Through Research and Standards

Whyte

Stuart

Mallory

et al. 2019

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standards for sports headgear were introduced as far back as the 1960s and many have remained substantially unchanged to present day. Since this time, headgear has virtually eliminated catastrophic head injuries such as skull fractures and changed the landscape of head injuries in sports. Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is now a prevalent concern and the effectiveness of headgear in mitigating mTBI is inconclusive for most sports. Given that most current headgear standards are confined to attenuating linear head mechanics and recent brain injury studies have underscored the importance of angular mechanics in the genesis of mTBI, new or expanded standards are needed to foster headgear development and assess headgear performance that addresses all types of sport-related head and brain injuries. The aim of this review was to provide a basis for developing new sports headgear impact tests for standards by summarizing and critiquing the following: (1) impact testing procedures currently codified in published headgear standards for sports and (2) new or proposed headgear impact test procedures in published literature and/or relevant conferences. Research areas identified as needing further knowledge to support standards test development include defining sports-specific head impact conditions, establishing injury and age appropriate headgear assessment criteria, and the development of headgear specific head and neck surrogates for at-risk populations.

show abstract

Response of an Impact Test Apparatus for Fall Protective Headgear Testing Using a Hybrid-III Head/Neck Assembly

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Impact attenuation provided by older adult protective headwear products during simulated fall-related head impacts

Impact attenuation provided by older adult protective headwear products during simulated fall-related head impacts

Six Degree-of-Freedom Measurements of Human Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

A Review of Impact Testing Methods for Headgear in Sports: Considerations for Improved Prevention of Head Injury Through Research and Standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About