Longitudinal assessment of post-concussion driving reaction time.

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Julia D Drattell, Samuel D Fu, Eric J Shumski, Thomas A Prato, Robert C Lynall, Hannes Devos, Julianne D Schmidt
{"title":"Longitudinal assessment of post-concussion driving reaction time.","authors":"Julia D Drattell, Samuel D Fu, Eric J Shumski, Thomas A Prato, Robert C Lynall, Hannes Devos, Julianne D Schmidt","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2025.2497066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Concussed patients present multiple neurocognitive and motor impairments including slowed reaction time (RT), a function essential to driving. We compared driving RT between concussed and non-concussed individuals across their concussion recovery (aim 1) and explored whether clinical concussion outcomes were correlated with driving RT uniquely in the concussion group (aim 2).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited collegiate athletes (26 concussed and 23 age- and sex-matched controls) to complete the sport concussion assessment tool (SCAT5), a computerized neurocognitive test (CNS Vital Signs), and a driving simulation across 3 timepoints: ≤72 h, asymptomatic, and unrestricted medical clearance. RTs were recorded in response to 4 unanticipated driving events. CNSVS included 10 measures of cognitive function. General linear mixed models assessed interaction between group and time for aim 1 and group and concussion assessment outcome for aim 2 (α = 0.05). Pairwise comparisons with Cohen's d values were used following significant interactions and main effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant main effect for timepoint, such that pedestrian RT was slower at the ≤72-h timepoint relative to both the asymptomatic (p value = 0.023) and unrestricted medical clearance (p- value = 0.022). There were no other significant group-by-timepoint interaction or timepoint main effects for yellow stoplight RT (p-value range = 0.334-0.798), vehicle incursion RT (p-value range = 0.234-0.925) or vehicle cross RT (p-value range = 0.177-0.364). There was no significant group main effect (p-value range = 0.077-0.955), assessment outcome main effect (p-value range = 0.099-0.999) or interaction (p-value range = 0.103-0.998) for predicting any of the RTs, except for executive function (<i>p</i> = 0.046), motor speed (<i>p</i> = 0.006), and psychomotor speed (<i>p</i> = 0.027) predicting vehicle cross RT regardless of group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that driving RT may not differ between acutely concussed and healthy individuals or may not be detected on a short, simulated drive. Current clinical concussion outcomes poorly relate to driving RT. More research is needed to determine when it is safe to return to driving post-concussion.</p>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2025.2497066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Concussed patients present multiple neurocognitive and motor impairments including slowed reaction time (RT), a function essential to driving. We compared driving RT between concussed and non-concussed individuals across their concussion recovery (aim 1) and explored whether clinical concussion outcomes were correlated with driving RT uniquely in the concussion group (aim 2).

Methods: We recruited collegiate athletes (26 concussed and 23 age- and sex-matched controls) to complete the sport concussion assessment tool (SCAT5), a computerized neurocognitive test (CNS Vital Signs), and a driving simulation across 3 timepoints: ≤72 h, asymptomatic, and unrestricted medical clearance. RTs were recorded in response to 4 unanticipated driving events. CNSVS included 10 measures of cognitive function. General linear mixed models assessed interaction between group and time for aim 1 and group and concussion assessment outcome for aim 2 (α = 0.05). Pairwise comparisons with Cohen's d values were used following significant interactions and main effects.

Results: There was a significant main effect for timepoint, such that pedestrian RT was slower at the ≤72-h timepoint relative to both the asymptomatic (p value = 0.023) and unrestricted medical clearance (p- value = 0.022). There were no other significant group-by-timepoint interaction or timepoint main effects for yellow stoplight RT (p-value range = 0.334-0.798), vehicle incursion RT (p-value range = 0.234-0.925) or vehicle cross RT (p-value range = 0.177-0.364). There was no significant group main effect (p-value range = 0.077-0.955), assessment outcome main effect (p-value range = 0.099-0.999) or interaction (p-value range = 0.103-0.998) for predicting any of the RTs, except for executive function (p = 0.046), motor speed (p = 0.006), and psychomotor speed (p = 0.027) predicting vehicle cross RT regardless of group.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that driving RT may not differ between acutely concussed and healthy individuals or may not be detected on a short, simulated drive. Current clinical concussion outcomes poorly relate to driving RT. More research is needed to determine when it is safe to return to driving post-concussion.

脑震荡后驾驶反应时间的纵向评估。
目的:脑震荡患者表现出多种神经认知和运动障碍,包括反应时间(RT)减慢,这是驾驶的基本功能。我们比较了脑震荡患者和非脑震荡患者在脑震荡恢复期间的驱动RT(目的1),并探讨了脑震荡组的临床脑震荡结果是否与驱动RT相关(目的2)。方法:我们招募了大学运动员(26名脑震荡患者和23名年龄和性别匹配的对照组),完成运动脑震荡评估工具(SCAT5)、计算机化神经认知测试(CNS生命体征)和3个时间点的驾驶模拟:≤72小时、无症状和无限制的医疗许可。记录了4个意外驾驶事件的RTs反应。CNSVS包括10项认知功能测量。一般线性混合模型评估目标1和目标2的组与时间的相互作用和脑震荡评估结果(α = 0.05)。在显著的相互作用和主效应之后,使用了与Cohen’s d值的两两比较。结果:时间点的主效应显著,在≤72 h时间点行人RT均较无症状(p值= 0.023)和无限制体检(p值= 0.022)慢。黄灯RT (p值范围为0.334 ~ 0.798)、车辆入侵RT (p值范围为0.234 ~ 0.925)和车辆穿越RT (p值范围为0.177 ~ 0.364)均不存在组间时间点交互作用或时间点主效应。除执行功能(p = 0.046)、运动速度(p = 0.006)和精神运动速度(p = 0.027)预测车辆交叉RT外,各组主效应(p值范围= 0.077-0.955)、评估结果主效应(p值范围= 0.099-0.999)或相互作用(p值范围= 0.103-0.998)对预测任何RTs均无显著影响。结论:本研究表明,急性脑震荡患者和健康个体之间的驾驶RT可能没有差异,或者在短暂的模拟驾驶中可能没有被检测到。目前的临床脑震荡结果与驾驶rt的关系不大,需要更多的研究来确定脑震荡后何时可以安全驾驶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信