在不同冲击测试系统中评估马球头盔的性能。

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-17 DOI:10.1007/s10439-025-03731-0
Nicole E-P Stark, Mark T Begonia, Steve Rowson
{"title":"在不同冲击测试系统中评估马球头盔的性能。","authors":"Nicole E-P Stark, Mark T Begonia, Steve Rowson","doi":"10.1007/s10439-025-03731-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated head impact response between different helmet impact test systems by comparing the performance of ten polo helmets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Helmets were evaluated using three test systems: a twin-wire guided drop tower, an oblique drop tower, and an impact pendulum. Impact tests were conducted at matched locations (front boss, side, rear boss) and speeds (3.46, 5.46 m/s). We employed a linear mixed model with helmet model as a random effect and calculated the least square mean differences between systems for peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak rotational acceleration (PRA), peak rotational velocity (PRV), and concussion risk. Correlations between systems by impact speed were explored, using linear models of each system as a function of the others, and calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients between test systems for each dependent variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results found distinct differences in PRA and concussion risk between the oblique and the pendulum impact systems due to the driving force. The acceleration range across helmet models was substantial, and responses differed between test systems at matched impact conditions. However, there were similarities between test systems in the rank order of helmet models. Head acceleration differences between helmets translated to larger differences in concussion risk between helmet models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These trends provide a framework for comparing the headform's response across varying loading conditions. When selecting a test system to evaluate helmets for a specific sport, it is essential to consider the relevant impact conditions and loading patterns to ensure that laboratory tests accurately represent real-world scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":7986,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Biomedical Engineering","volume":" ","pages":"1810-1833"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283464/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Polo Helmet Performance Across Different Impact Test Systems.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole E-P Stark, Mark T Begonia, Steve Rowson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10439-025-03731-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated head impact response between different helmet impact test systems by comparing the performance of ten polo helmets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Helmets were evaluated using three test systems: a twin-wire guided drop tower, an oblique drop tower, and an impact pendulum. Impact tests were conducted at matched locations (front boss, side, rear boss) and speeds (3.46, 5.46 m/s). We employed a linear mixed model with helmet model as a random effect and calculated the least square mean differences between systems for peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak rotational acceleration (PRA), peak rotational velocity (PRV), and concussion risk. Correlations between systems by impact speed were explored, using linear models of each system as a function of the others, and calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients between test systems for each dependent variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results found distinct differences in PRA and concussion risk between the oblique and the pendulum impact systems due to the driving force. The acceleration range across helmet models was substantial, and responses differed between test systems at matched impact conditions. However, there were similarities between test systems in the rank order of helmet models. Head acceleration differences between helmets translated to larger differences in concussion risk between helmet models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These trends provide a framework for comparing the headform's response across varying loading conditions. When selecting a test system to evaluate helmets for a specific sport, it is essential to consider the relevant impact conditions and loading patterns to ensure that laboratory tests accurately represent real-world scenarios.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Biomedical Engineering\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1810-1833\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283464/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Biomedical Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-025-03731-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Biomedical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-025-03731-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过比较10个马球头盔的性能,评价不同头盔冲击试验系统对头部冲击响应的影响。方法:使用三种测试系统对头盔进行评估:双线导坠塔、斜坠塔和冲击摆。在匹配位置(前凸台、侧凸台、后凸台)和速度(3.46、5.46 m/s)下进行冲击试验。我们采用了一个线性混合模型和头盔模型作为随机效应,并计算了系统之间的最小二乘平均差值,包括峰值线性加速度(PLA)、峰值旋转加速度(PRA)、峰值旋转速度(PRV)和脑震荡风险。利用每个系统的线性模型作为其他系统的函数,探讨了系统与冲击速度之间的相关性,并计算了每个因变量的测试系统之间的Spearman秩相关系数。结果:我们的研究结果发现,由于驱动力的不同,倾斜撞击系统和钟摆撞击系统在PRA和脑震荡风险方面存在明显差异。不同头盔型号的加速度范围相当大,在匹配的冲击条件下,不同测试系统的响应也不同。然而,在头盔型号的等级顺序上,测试系统之间存在相似之处。头盔之间的头部加速度差异转化为不同头盔型号之间脑震荡风险的更大差异。结论:这些趋势提供了一个框架,比较顶箱的响应在不同的负载条件。当选择测试系统来评估特定运动的头盔时,必须考虑相关的冲击条件和加载模式,以确保实验室测试准确地代表现实世界的场景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Polo Helmet Performance Across Different Impact Test Systems.

Purpose: This study evaluated head impact response between different helmet impact test systems by comparing the performance of ten polo helmets.

Methods: Helmets were evaluated using three test systems: a twin-wire guided drop tower, an oblique drop tower, and an impact pendulum. Impact tests were conducted at matched locations (front boss, side, rear boss) and speeds (3.46, 5.46 m/s). We employed a linear mixed model with helmet model as a random effect and calculated the least square mean differences between systems for peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak rotational acceleration (PRA), peak rotational velocity (PRV), and concussion risk. Correlations between systems by impact speed were explored, using linear models of each system as a function of the others, and calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients between test systems for each dependent variable.

Results: Our results found distinct differences in PRA and concussion risk between the oblique and the pendulum impact systems due to the driving force. The acceleration range across helmet models was substantial, and responses differed between test systems at matched impact conditions. However, there were similarities between test systems in the rank order of helmet models. Head acceleration differences between helmets translated to larger differences in concussion risk between helmet models.

Conclusion: These trends provide a framework for comparing the headform's response across varying loading conditions. When selecting a test system to evaluate helmets for a specific sport, it is essential to consider the relevant impact conditions and loading patterns to ensure that laboratory tests accurately represent real-world scenarios.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
Annals of Biomedical Engineering 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
15.80%
发文量
212
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Biomedical Engineering is an official journal of the Biomedical Engineering Society, publishing original articles in the major fields of bioengineering and biomedical engineering. The Annals is an interdisciplinary and international journal with the aim to highlight integrated approaches to the solutions of biological and biomedical problems.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信