3.30 Blink-related oscillations capture neurophysiological impairments due to subconcussive head impacts in contact sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Blink-related oscillations (BRO) are newly discovered brainwave markers that correspond to information processing after blinking, and engage key brain regions previously shown to be implicated in subconcussive impacts. This study utilized BRO responses to evaluate brain function differences in varsity athletes with and without subconcussive impacts. Design Prospective cross-sectional study. Setting Post-season assessments of varsity athletes following regular season play. Participants Sixteen female varsity athletes were recruited (21 ± 1.78 yo), including 10 who were engaged in a contact sport (i.e. soccer; SC group) and 6 engaged in non-contact sport (i.e. running, swimming or rowing; NC group). Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) None Outcome Measures Video recordings of on-field activity was used to identify subconcussive impacts due to repetitive headers in SC. BRO responses were assessed using 64-channel electroencephalography (EEG), and amplitude and latency were measured. Main Results There were 114.7 ± 55.9 head impacts for the SC group during the season. None of the 16 participants experienced unintentional head impacts or were diagnosed with concussion. BRO responses were detected in both the SC and NC groups, with characteristic morphologies comprising two post-blink peaks C1 and C2. However, SC group exhibited significantly reduced C1 magnitude compared to NC in the left posterior parietal region (p<0.05). Conclusions Our results showed that BRO responses can detect subconcussive impacts due to headers in varsity soccer athletes following regular season play. This provides the first demonstration that neural processing following spontaneous blinking can capture brain function differences in sports-related head impacts in the absence of diagnosed concussion.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".