Back to all available

The effect of impact location, velocity, and frequency on head injury criterion during ice hockey helmet drop tests

kinesiology
biomechanics
sports-injury
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background. This study investigated whether differences in ice hockey helmet protection performance at varying impact velocities influence head injury risk.
Methods. Linear acceleration data were recorded during drop tests on 24 ice hockey helmets by using a uniaxial accelerometer in a collision test machine under low- and ambient-temperature environments for sequential low-, medium-, and high-velocity impacts. Head injury criterion (HIC), seasonal injury risk (SIR) under different impact velocities, and total seasonal injury risk (TSIR) were calculated for each helmet location.
Results. In both temperature environments, the back, front, and side locations produced higher TSIR than the top. Under low-velocity impacts, the side location produced higher SIR and HIC than the back and front. Under medium- and high-velocity impacts, the side location produced lower SIR than the back and front, or showed no difference compared to the back. Except for comparisons between the side and back/front under low-velocity impacts, SIR and HIC differences across locations were inconsistent or nonsignificant.
Conclusion. These findings suggest that under low-velocity impacts, the higher HIC at the side location may be a key factor influencing head injury risk. To enhance helmet protective performance, optimizing energy absorption at the side location during low-velocity impacts is recommended.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].