4.2 Article

Head acceleration event metrics in youth contact sports more dependent on sport than level of play

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0954411920970812

关键词

Football; soccer; repetitive head trauma

资金

  1. Collaboration in Translational Research grant from the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [NSF DGE-1333468]
  3. Allied Milk Producers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to evaluate the impact of repetitive head traumas on athletes in contact sports, finding that the type of sport has a greater influence on head acceleration event characteristics than the level of play.
The goal of the study was to evaluate how repetitive head traumas sustained by athletes in contact sports depend on sport and level of play. A total of 16 middle school football players, 107 high school football players, and 65 high school female soccer players participated. Players were separated into levels of play: middle school (MS), freshman (FR), junior varsity (JV), junior varsity-varsity (JV-V), and varsity (V). xPatch sensors were used to measure peak translational and angular accelerations (PTA and PAA, respectively) for each head acceleration event (HAE) during practice and game sessions. Data were analyzed using a custom MATLAB program to compare metrics that have been correlated with functional neurological changes: session metrics (median HAEs per contact session), season metrics (total HAEs, cumulative PTA/PAA), and regressions (cumulative PTA/PAA versus total HAEs, total HAEs versus median HAEs per contact session). Football players had greater session (p<.001) and season (p<.001) metrics than soccer players, but soccer players had a significantly greater player average PAA per HAE than football players (p<.001). Middle school football players had similar session and season metrics to high school level athletes. In conclusion, sport has a greater influence on HAE characteristics than level of play.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据