|
Citation
|
Dodds F, Fabre D, Schrum K, Oster R, Buford T, Gould S. Phys. Sportsmed. 2023; ePub(ePub): ePub. |
|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: Employ a novel testing method to assess Multi Directional Impact Protection System (MIPS) helmet technology on rotational velocity and acceleration during head impact.
METHODS: An optimization study was completed utilizing a 50(th) percentile male Hybrid III anthropomorphic test device (ATD or dummy). Helmets included basic Expanded Polystyrene foam (EPS) and two different MIPS helmets (MIPS1 and MIPS2). A 24.38-meter-long elevated track with rails and a motorized sled was utilized to replicate a fall from a height of approximately 2.13 meters. The motorized sled was set to a pre-set speed of 20.92 kph, controlled by Siemen's Human Machine Interface (HMI) technology at the end of the track, a tripping mechanism induced rotation in the ATD from the sled and onto a sand surface. Data was obtained from DTS SLICE NANO recorders as well as triaxial linear accelerators and angular rate sensors positioned within the head form of the ATD. During impact of the ATD with the sand surface, the head kinematics were measured using resultant acceleration (peak G's), duration of impact (ms) and rotational velocity (rad/s).
RESULTS: A total of three trials for each helmet did not demonstrate a significant difference between the EPS vs. MIPS 1 group with, peak (G's) for resultant acceleration (p = 0.100), duration (ms) for resultant acceleration, (p = 0.100), peak (G's) for rotational velocity, (p = 0.700), and duration (ms) for rotational velocity, (p = 0.700). Similarly, the EPS vs. MIPS 2 testing demonstrated no significant differences between the MIPS 2 helmet when compared to the EPS helmet, with resultant acceleration (p = 0.400), duration acceleration (p = 0.200), rotational velocity (p = 0.400) and duration velocity (p = 0.400). However, when the MIPS helmet data was pooled, (total impacts n = 6) and the EPS helmet data (total impacts n = 3) were compared, a statistically significant difference in the duration of acceleration was found (p = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: Current testing uses a helmeted head form which is dropped or rolled from a prescribed height. These methods discount the tremendous loading placed on the neck and head through the angular momentum of the body itself. Our novel testing method did not find significant differences between the various helmet types in their performance at diminishing peak rotational forces to the brain, however our data suggests that MIPS helmet liners may reduce duration of impact. The reduction of acceleration duration could indicate less overall rotation of the neck, due to the dampening of these forces by the MIPS liners.
Language: en |