The Effect of Repetitive Head Impact in Sensory Reweighting in Collision College Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objective</h3> To compare sensory reweighting for upright stance between collegiate collision and non-contact sport athletes. <h3>Background</h3> The potentially adverse effects of repetitive head impact (RHI) exposure through routine collision sport participation have become a major public health concerns. <h3>Design/Methods</h3> Thirty male collegiate athletes were grouped by sport type, including collision (n = 15, 21.2 ± 2 years, 85.9 ± 13.8 kg, 179.7 ± 8.2 cm) and non-contact (n = 15, 20.8 ± 2.1 years, 72.9 ± 4.8 kg, 178.3 ± 4.3 cm) sport athletes. Participants underwent a standing balance assessment; they experienced simultaneous perturbations to visual, vestibular, and somatosensory systems. The visual stimulus consisted of 500 pyramids displayed on a virtual reality cave and translated in the anterior-posterior direction at 0.2 Hz in a sinusoidal waveform. The vestibular stimulus consisted of binaural-monopolar galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) at 0.36 Hz in a sinusoidal waveform. The somatosensory stimulus consisted of bilateral Achilles’ tendon vibration at 0.28 Hz in a square waveform with equal on/off times. Different frequencies were chosen for each modality so that we could calculate the gain to each stimulus independently. There were four conditions: two conditions of each high amplitude (0.2 m) and low amplitude (0.8 m) visual scene translation and two conditions of each vibration on and vibration off. The leg segment gain to each modality was compared between groups and across conditions using a repeated-measures ANOVA. <h3>Results</h3> There were no changes in leg segment gain to vision (i.e. group effect; F = 2.624, <i>p</i> = 0.094, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.086), gain to GVS (F = 1.341, <i>p</i> = 0.266, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.46), or gain to vibration (F = 3.124, <i>p</i> = 0.088, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.100). In addition, there were no changes in sensory reweighting for any modality (i.e. condition X group effect; vision, F = 0.074, <i>p</i> = 0.788, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.003; GVS, F = 0.547, <i>p</i> = 0.46, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.019; vibration, F = 0.734, <i>p</i> = 0.399, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.026). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our findings suggest that there are no differences in sensory reweighting between collegiate collision and non-contact sport athletes. Despite concerns that RHI exposure through routine collision sport participation may result in balance disturbances, our results do not support this association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".