Repeatability and Biofidelity of a Physical Surrogate Neck Model Fit to a Hybrid III Head

Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices

Wearable devices are increasingly used to measure real-world head impacts and study brain injury mechanisms. These devices must undergo validation testing to ensure they provide reliable and accurate information for head impact sensing, and controlled laboratory testing should be the first step of validation. Past validation studies have applied varying methodologies, and some devices have been deployed for on-field use without validation. This paper presents best practices recommendations for validating wearable head kinematic devices in the laboratory, with the goal of standardizing validation test methods and data reporting. Key considerations, recommended approaches, and specific considerations were developed for four main aspects of laboratory validation, including surrogate selection, test conditions, data collection, and data analysis. Recommendations were generated by a group with expertise in head kinematic sensing and laboratory validation methods and reviewed by a larger group to achieve consensus on best practices. We recommend that these best practices are followed by manufacturers, users, and reviewers to conduct and/or review laboratory validation of wearable devices, which is a minimum initial step prior to on-field validation and deployment. We anticipate that the best practices recommendations will lead to more rigorous validation of wearable head kinematic devices and higher accuracy in head impact data, which can subsequently advance brain injury research and management.

Best Practices for Conducting Physical Reconstructions of Head Impacts in Sport

Physical reconstructions are a valuable methodology for quantifying head kinematics in sports impacts. By recreating the motion of human heads observed in video using instrumented test dummies in a laboratory, physical reconstructions allow for in-depth study of real-world head impacts using well-established surrogates such as the Hybrid III crash test dummy. The purpose of this paper is to review all aspects of the physical reconstruction methodology and discuss the advantages and limitations associated with different choices in case selection, study design, test surrogate, test apparatus, text matrix, instrumentation, and data processing. Physical reconstructions require significant resources to perform and are therefore typically limited to small sample sizes and a case series or case-control study design. Their accuracy may also be limited by a lack of dummy biofidelity. The accuracy, repeatability, and sensitivity of the reconstruction process can be characterized and improved by good laboratory practices and iterative testing. Because wearable sensors have their own limitations and are not available or practical for many sports, physical reconstructions will continue to provide a useful and complementary approach to measuring head acceleration in sport for the foreseeable future.

Incorporating neck biomechanics in helmet testing: Evaluation of commercially available WaveCel helmets

BACKGROUND

Cycling helmets often incorporate elements aimed to dissipate rotational energies, which is widely acknowledged to play a key role in concussion mechanics. In this study, we investigated the mechanics of an oblique helmet test protocol that induced helmet rotation while using it to evaluate the effectiveness of three helmet models: two standard expanded polystyrene helmets and a commercially-available helmet equipped with a liner designed to mitigate linear and rotational energies.

METHODS

Helmets equipped with WaveCel were tested against two expanded polystyrene helmet models through guided drops using a Hybrid III (HIII) head-and-neck surrogate. The three helmet models were tested across four impact conditions (n = 5) of different speeds and impact surface angles.

FINDINGS

Across all tests, a similar sequence of head motion was observed - first a flexion phase followed by an extension phase. The extension phase lacked evidence of biofidelity and was likely attributable to the energy stored in the neckform during the flexion phase; it was therefore neglected from analysis. Results showed WaveCel reduced the probability of AIS2 head injury across all tests (3 to 27% reductions in 4.8 m/s impacts; 36 to 37% reductions in 6.2 m/s impacts).

INTERPRETATION

The two-phased response of the HIII suggests that boundary condition selection can influence results and should thus be reported in studies using similar methods. While this protocol involved both axial and tangential impact components and were thus representative of real-world collisions, the efficacy of WaveCel should be further investigated through additional laboratory studies and tracking real-world cycling injury statistics.