Display options
Share it on

Sports (Basel). 2019 Sep 16;7(9). doi: 10.3390/sports7090213.

Effects of Protective American Football Headgear on Peripheral Vision Reaction Time and Visual Target Detection in Division I NCAA Football Players.

Sports (Basel, Switzerland)

Rachel A Miller, Rebecca R Rogers, Tyler D Williams, Mallory R Marshall, Justin R Moody, Robert W Hensarling, Christopher G Ballmann

Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].
  2. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].
  3. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].
  4. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].
  5. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].
  6. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].
  7. Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. [email protected].

PMID: 31527412 PMCID: PMC6783852 DOI: 10.3390/sports7090213

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of protective football headgear on peripheral vision reaction time and visual target detection. Twenty-five Division I NCAA football players (age = 20.5 yrs ± 0.9, height = 185.9 cm ± 6.8, body mass = 99.2 kg ± 19.2, BMI = 29.6 ± 4.5) participated. In a crossover counterbalanced study design, subjects participated in one visit with three conditions: Baseline (BL) without headgear, helmet only (HO), helmet with an eye shield (HE). Subjects completed a 1-min peripheral vision reaction time test for each condition separated by 3-min recovery periods. Tests were administered using a 64 light Dynavision D2 Visuomotor board. Target detection (total hit score) was higher during BL than HO (p < 0.001) and HE (p < 0.001). Average (p < 0.001), peak (p < 0.001), minimum (p < 0.001), and median (p < 0.001) peripheral reaction times were faster during BL than HO and HE. No significant differences were observed for any measures between HO and HE conditions (p > 0.05). Findings indicate that protective football headgear impaired reaction time to peripheral visual stimuli. The addition of an eye shield to the helmet had a small non-significant effect on reaction time and target detection. These results may hold important implications in helmet design and player safety.

Keywords: college football; dynavision; eye shield; facemask; football helmet; visor

References

  1. Pediatrics. 2004 Mar;113(3 Pt 1):619-22 - PubMed
  2. Percept Mot Skills. 2008 Aug;107(1):14-20 - PubMed
  3. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(11):1117-23 - PubMed
  4. Can J Ophthalmol. 2002 Apr;37(3):161-7 - PubMed
  5. J Neurosurg. 2014 Apr;120(4):919-22 - PubMed
  6. Neurosurgery. 2004 Sep;55(3):656-61; discussion 661-2 - PubMed
  7. J Sports Sci. 2019 Jan;37(1):13-19 - PubMed
  8. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007 May;27(3):265-74 - PubMed
  9. J Neurosurg. 2017 Mar;126(3):768-781 - PubMed
  10. Optom Clin. 1993;3(1):145-69 - PubMed
  11. J Sports Sci Med. 2014 Jan 20;13(1):145-50 - PubMed
  12. Neurosurgery. 2004 Sep;55(3):649-55 - PubMed
  13. Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Aug;27(4):493-501 - PubMed
  14. Neurosurgery. 2006 Feb;58(2):275-86; discussion 275-86 - PubMed
  15. Wilderness Environ Med. 2011 Jun;22(2):148-50 - PubMed
  16. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2013 Nov-Dec;12(6):377-80 - PubMed
  17. JAMA. 1965 May 17;192:616-8 - PubMed
  18. J Sports Sci. 2019 Sep;37(18):2114-2121 - PubMed
  19. Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Aug;67(1):115-20 - PubMed
  20. J Athl Train. 2010 Nov-Dec;45(6):549-59 - PubMed
  21. Br J Sports Med. 2009 May;43 Suppl 1:i56-67 - PubMed

Publication Types