Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 8, August 2015 ( 2014) pp.

18961906
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-014-1197-z

Measurement of Hybrid III Head Impact Kinematics Using

an Accelerometer and Gyroscope System in Ice Hockey Helmets
MARI A. ALLISON,1,2 YUN SEOK KANG,3 MATTHEW R. MALTESE,4,5 JOHN H. BOLTE IV,3
and KRISTY B. ARBOGAST1,5
1
The Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market St. Suite 1150,
Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; 2Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Injury
Biomechanics Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Critical
Care Medicine, The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA; and 5Department of Pediatrics, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
(Received 27 June 2014; accepted 19 November 2014; published online 5 December 2014)

Associate Editor Stefan M Duma oversaw the review of this article.

AbstractHelmet-based instrumentation is used to study the
biomechanics of concussion. The most extensively used
systems estimate rotational acceleration from linear acceler-
ation, but new instrumentation measures rotational velocity
using gyroscopes, potentially reducing error. This study
compared kinematics from an accelerometer and gyroscope-
containing system to reference measures. A Hybrid III (HIII)
adult male anthropometric test device head and neck was t
with two helmet brands, each instrumented with gForce
Tracker (GFT) sensor systems in four locations. Helmets
were impacted at various speeds and directions. Regression
relationships between GFT-measured and reference peak
kinematics were quantied, and inuence of impact direc-
tion, sensor location, and helmet brand was evaluated. The
relationship between the sensor output and the reference
acceleration/velocity experienced by the head was strong.
Coefcients of determination for data stratied by individual
impact directions ranged from 0.77 to 0.99 for peak linear
acceleration and from 0.78 to 1.0 for peak rotational velocity.
For the data from all impact directions combined, coef-
cients of determination ranged from 0.60 to 0.80 for peak
resultant linear acceleration and 0.83 to 0.91 for peak
resultant rotational velocity. As expected, raw peak resultant
linear acceleration measures exhibited large percent differ-
ences from reference measures. Adjustment using regressions
resulted in average absolute errors of 1015% if regression
adjustments were done by impact direction or 2540% if
regressions incorporating data from all impact directions
were used. Average absolute percent differences in raw peak
resultant rotational velocity were much lower, around
Address correspondence to Kristy B. Arbogast, The Center for
Injury Research and Prevention, The Childrens Hospital of Phila-
delphia, 3535 Market St. Suite 1150, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Electronic mail: arbogast@email.chop.edu
1896
0090-6964/15/0800-1896/0 2014 Biomedical Engineering Society
1015%. It is important to dene system accuracy for a
particular helmet brand, sensor location, and impact direc-
tion in order to interpret real-world data.
KeywordsmTBI, Concussion, Head injury, Head accelera-
tion, Head impact biomechanics, Impact monitoring, Helmet
sensors.
INTRODUCTION
With millions of mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs)
occurring each year,4,6 and recent data suggesting that
they can cause long term neurological consequences,13,25
prevention of these injuries has been declared by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a research
priority.20 The thresholds that lead to mTBI are still a
matter of debate;10 however, understanding the biome-
chanical inputs that lead to these injuries is essential in
preventing them from occurring.
In recent years, helmet-based instrumentation con-
sisting of accelerometers has been used to monitor the
biomechanics of impacts sustained by athletes in high-
impact sports. These sports provide a unique oppor-
tunity to study head injury in a real-world scenario, as
impacts occur frequently in these settings and the
athletes are at an increased risk for mTBI during
normal play. Furthermore, neurocognitive baseline
measures can be taken on the athletes playing these
sports, so that biomechanical inputs can be correlated
to neurocognitive changes.
The most widely-used helmet-based systems to date
have been the head impact telemetry (HIT) systems for
football and ice hockey (Simbex LLC; Lebanon, NH).
 Helmet-Based Measurement of Head Kinematics
Data collected using these accelerometer systems have
been used to compare head impact magnitudes based
on a number of characteristics, including playing po-
sition, gender, awareness of impending impact, cervical
muscle strength, and sport specic scenar-
ios.2,5,15,1719,21,23,26 Concussion risk curves for foot-
ball players based on peak resultant linear head
acceleration have also been developed using data col-
lected via the HIT System for football.7,8,24
Accurate measurement of rotational kinematics is
particularly important when studying thresholds of
traumatic brain injury. The rotational movement is
correlated to measures of strain within the brain, which
are predictive of diuse axonal injury across the
spectrum of severity.3,9,14,27 Validation studies have
shown that previously-used helmet instrumentation
systems have average absolute errors in the range of
1560% in estimating rotational kinematics based on
measures from linear accelerometers.1,12 However, it is
likely more accurate to measure than calculate rota-
tional kinematics and new helmet-based instrumenta-
tion systems have been developed that use gyroscopes
in combination with accelerometers. One such system,
the gForce Tracker (GFT) (Markham, ON), employs a
triaxial accelerometer and a triaxial gyroscope to
measure linear acceleration and rotational velocity.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare
linear and rotational kinematic measures from the
GFT to reference measures during a series of impacts
to a helmeted HIII headform to evaluate the systems
accuracy to monitor on-ice impacts in ice hockey.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A HIII 50th percentile male ATD head and neck with
the 3-2-2-2 accelerometer array22 and three angular rate
sensors was rigidly mounted at T1. Rigid mounting of the
ATD head and neck simulates a large effective mass of
the torso. In order to best-simulate a real-world scenario,
a human hair wig was used as it was previously found
that the interface between the ATD head and the helmet
can signicantly affect the relationship between helmet-
based system and reference measures.1 The wig was ad-
hered to the HIII head using industrial-strength double-
sided tape, which kept the wig in place, and it was
sprayed with water to simulate perspiration.
An Easton S9 hockey helmet (Easton-Bell Sports
Inc., Van Nuys, CA) and a Bauer RE-AKT hockey
helmet (Bauer Hockey, Inc., Exeter, NH) were each
instrumented with GFT sensors in four dierent loca-
tions: outside top, outside back, outside right, and in-
side top (Fig. 1). The same set of sensors was used on
both the Easton helmet and the Bauer helmet to com-
pare differences in measures that may occur due to
1897
helmet construction. The helmets were t to the HIII
head following USA hockey guidelines, with the helmet
tight enough to prevent longitudinal rotation and cen-
tered on the head with the rim one nger width above
the eyebrows.11 Differences in helmet construction and
sizing recommendations based on head circumference
led to the use of a large-sized Easton helmet and a
medium-sized Bauer helmet. The alignment of the hel-
met on the HIII head was checked before each impact to
conrm repeatability of the testing conditions. Each
helmet had its corresponding facemask attached, as
hockey players under the age of 18 are required by USA
Hockey rules to wear a facemask during play.
The GFT consists of a triaxial accelerometer and a
triaxial gyroscope housed in a casing that is attached to
a helmet via adhesive or Dual Lock Reclosable Fas-
teners (3M, St. Paul, MN). This allows integration into
a helmet of choice, and implementation across a range
of helmeted sports. Impact data is stored on-board and
uploaded via USB connection. The data obtained by the
end-user is the raw acceleration and velocity data, and
has not been processed apart from use of a simple rst-
order hardware low pass lter on the accelerometers
with a cut-off frequency of 300 Hz, so it has not been
transformed to an approximate center of gravity of the
head or adjusted to account for the helmets dissipation
of energy. Impact data is recorded over a 40 ms time-
span at 3000 Hz for linear acceleration data and 760 Hz
for rotational velocity data. However, if the acceleration
remains above the user-set threshold beyond this time-
point, the system continues recording 40 ms timespans
of data until the acceleration falls below the threshold.
For this study, that threshold was set to 8 g.
A 23.9 kg pneumatic linear impactor, with a 0.6 kg
ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene impacting
surface, was used to directly hit the helmet at 1.5, 2.5,
3.75, and 5 m/s in front, side, back, and oblique back
directions (Fig. 2). The oblique back direction was
measured 45 degrees from the sagittal plane. Direct
impact to the sensor changes the mechanics of the
impact and creates the possibility of altering the data
collected at the other three sensor locations. Therefore,
due to impact interference, the back sensor was
removed from the Bauer helmet during the back im-
pacts, and impact data is not available for this helmet-
sensor location-impact direction combination.
The impacting surface was cylindrical (4 in. in
diameter) with rounded edges, with the at end of the
cylinder contacting the helmet. The impacting speeds
were chosen to produce accelerations across the range
of measures observed during on-ice play,16 and the test
matrix included three or four impacts per speed-
direction combination (Fig. 3). The methodology used
in this study is similar to that of a previously published
validation study on the HIT System for ice hockey.1
1898 ALLISON et al.

FIGURE 1. GFT sensor locations.

FIGURE 2. Depicts front (top left), side (top right), oblique (bottom left) and back (bottom right) impact directions. Front and back
impacts were done along the saggital plane, side impacts were done along the coronal plane, and oblique impacts were measured
at 45 from back.
 Helmet-Based Measurement of Head Kinematics 1899

FIGURE 3. Test matrix showing the number of impacts per helmet-speed-impact direction combination.

HIII acceleration time histories, measured at the were applied to peak values for that impact direction
center of gravity of the head, were processed using a CFC and then absolute error was calculated (Fig. 4b).
1000 lter. Similarly, rotational velocities measured via
angular rate sensors were processed using a CFC 60 lter. Percent error of power relationship adjusted data


Maximum values of resultant linear acceleration and
resultant rotational velocity were compared between the
HIII and GFT measurement systems for the same im-
pact. The correlation between these measures was dened
using power t regression and assessed via coefcient of
determination (R2). Power regressions were found for
data from all impact directions combined and then for
data stratied by impact direction. All regressions were
helmet brand-specic.
The data was separated by helmet brand and the
average absolute percent dierences between the raw
data and ATD reference measures for all impacts to
each helmet were calculated. The versions of GFT
hardware and software used in this study provide raw
data and do not incorporate an algorithm to transform
the raw data to the CG of the head. However, from an
injury biomechanics and injury risk standpoint, it is
important to understand how accurately such sensors
describe the kinematics of the head CG. Therefore,
adjustment factors were applied to attempt to estimate
CG measures. Since the sensors are attached to the
helmet, this cannot be done using a direct rigid body
transformation as the helmet is not rigid relative to the
head. For these reasons, an empirical method was used
to adjust the data, applying the two types of power
regressions mentioned above to the peak resultant
measures of linear acceleration and rotational velocity
(Eq. 1). First, the regression equation developed using
data from all impact directions combined was applied to
the peak values before calculating absolute error
(Fig. 4a). As a second approach, the regression equa-
tions developed from data stratied by impact direction
 a  GFTb 
max  HIIImax
 100 1
HIIImax
where a and b are coefcients of the power regression
equation
All statistical analyses were performed using the mixed
models procedure in SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary,
NC). The relationship between HIII peak resultant kine-
matic values (e.g., linear acceleration and rotational
velocity) and the raw GFT peak resultant kinematic values
was assessed by using the ratio of HIII peak value to
corresponding peak raw GFT value as the outcome
measure. Impact direction (front, side, back, or oblique
back), helmet brand (Easton or Bauer), and sensor loca-
tion (outside top, outside right, outside back, or inside top)
were included in the model as categorical variables (Model
1). The eect of these categorical variables on the rela-
tionship between HIII and GFT peak resultant measures
was assessed. In cases of statistically signicant interac-
tions, data was stratied to test for specic eects, using
Bonferroni corrections to adjust for multiple tests (Model
2, Model 3). Statistical analyses were performed for both
peak linear accelerations and peak rotational velocities.
HIIIpeak
b0 b1  V1 b2  V2 b3  V3
GFTrawpeak
b4  V1  V2 b5  V1  V3 b6
 V2  V3 b7  V1  V2  V3 e
Model 1: Statistical model including all vari-
ables. V1 = helmet brand, V2 = impact direc-
tion, and V3 = sensor location.
1900
FIGURE 4. Peak resultant linear acceleration data for GFT measures from the inside top sensor location. Both graphs depict the
same data, but the graph to the left shows the power regression for all impact directions combined while the graph to the right
shows impact direction-specific power regressions.
HIIIpeak
b0 b1  V2 b2  V3 b3  V2
GFTrawpeak
 V3 e
Model 2: Statistical model for data stratied by
helmet brand. V2 = impact direction and
V3 = sensor location.
HIIIpeak
b0 b1  V2 e
GFTrawpeak
Model 3a: Statistical model for data stratied by
helmet brand and sensor location. V2 = impact
direction.
HIIIpeak
b0 b1  V3 e
GFTrawpeak
Model 3b: Statistical model for data stratied by
helmet brand and impact direction. V3 = sensor
location.
RESULTS
The total test matrix was 118 impacts and analyz-
able data was obtained for all impacts. Power regres-
sion analysis of peak GFT kinematics compared to
peak reference HIII kinematics showed strong rela-
tionships between these measures. Coecients of
determination for data stratied by individual impact
directions ranged from 0.77 to 0.99 for peak linear
acceleration (Fig. 4 right, Fig. 5; Table 1a) and from
0.78 to 1.0 for peak rotational velocity (Fig. 5;
Table 1b). For the data from all impact directions
combined, coefcients of determination ranged from
0.60 to 0.80 for peak resultant linear acceleration and
0.830.91 for peak resultant rotational velocity (Fig. 4
left; Table 1).
ALLISON et al.
Comparison between the raw GFT measures and
the reference acceleration/velocity at the ATD CG
showed expected large dierences (100150%,
Table 2a). These differences can be attributed to sev-
eral reasons: no in-built algorithm to transform the
data to the CG of the ATD, the role of the helmet in
dissipating forces imparted to the head, and sensor
error. After applying the regression equations devel-
oped using data stratied by specic impact directions,
these differences were substantially reduced. Average
absolute errors for peak linear acceleration ranged
from 4.8 to 22.0% for the Bauer helmet and from 3.5
to 23.0% for the Easton helmet (Table 2a). The aver-
age absolute errors for data adjusted using direction-
specic regressions were generally larger for the Easton
helmet than for the Bauer helmet, particularly for back
and front impacts, and were generally smaller for side
impacts than other impact directions for both helmet
brands (Table 2a). After applying the regression
equations developed using data from all impact
directions combined, average absolute errors for peak
linear acceleration ranged from 24.9 to 35.4% for the
Bauer Re-Akt helmet and from 24.8 to 39.6% for the
Easton S9 helmet (Table 2a). The outside back sensor
location generally had the largest error.
The dierences between GFT-measured peak
resultant rotational velocities and the corresponding
ATD measures were lower than those for linear
acceleration (Table 2b). Raw data average percent
differences ranged from 9.2 to 17.1%. After applying
the regression equations developed using data stratied
by specic impact directions, average absolute errors in
peak rotational velocity ranged from 2.8 to 10.8% for
the Bauer helmet and from 2.1 to 18.8% for the Easton
helmet. After applying the regression equations
developed using data from all impact directions com-
bined, average absolute errors in peak rotational
velocity ranged from 13.2 to 14.2% for the Bauer
 Helmet-Based Measurement of Head Kinematics 1901

FIGURE 5. Exemplar data collected from impacts to the helmeted HIII head. The top two graphs depict peak linear and rotational
measures from the outside right sensor during oblique impacts. The bottom two graphs depict peak linear and rotational measures
from the outside right sensor during back impacts.

TABLE 1. Power regression equations and their associated coefficients of determination derived from regression analyses for
both helmet brands and each sensor location/impact direction combination for peak resultant linear acceleration (a) and rotational
velocity (b).

Outside top sensor Outside right sensor Outside back sensor

Inside top sensor location location location location

Helmet Impact direction Regression equation R2 Regression equation R2 Regression equation R2 Regression equation R2

(a)
Bauer All data y = 0.37x1.08 0.74 y = 0.37x1.05 0.77 y = 0.37x1.07 0.72 y = 0.50x1.00 0.69
Side impacts y = 0.33x1.20 0.96 y = 0.57x1.05 0.99 y = 0.50x1.05 0.99 y = 1.10x0.92 0.99
Oblique impacts y = 0.14x1.28 0.93 y = 0.02x1.68 0.95 y = 0.11x1.40 0.95 y = 0.04x1.48 0.92
Back impacts y = 0.52x1.01 0.92 y = 0.57x0.95 0.94 y = 1.06x0.85 0.94 N/A N/A
Front impacts y = 1.20x0.71 0.91 y = 0.70x0.85 0.88 y = 0.12x1.19 0.90 y = 0.28x1.07 0.98
Easton All data y = 0.41x1.02 0.80 y = 0.16x1.21 0.80 y = 0.25x1.12 0.66 y = 1.23x0.77 0.60
Side impacts y = 1.14x0.87 0.99 y = 0.75x0.94 0.92 y = 0.46x1.09 0.99 y = 1.24x0.87 0.99
Oblique impacts y = 0.03x1.58 0.93 y = 0.05x1.48 0.98 y = 0.05x1.46 0.90 y = 0.004x1.87 0.93
Back impacts y = 0.42x0.98 0.81 y = 0.14x1.19 0.89 y = 0.29x1.07 0.79 y = 0.16x1.13 0.77
Front impacts y = 0.41x0.99 0.89 y = 0.07x1.34 0.87 y = 0.17x1.11 0.84 y = 0.25x1.21 0.96
(b)
Bauer All data y = 2.86x0.86 0.84 y = 2.28x0.88 0.85 y = 1.39x0.95 0.83 y = 1.23x0.96 0.86
Side impacts y = 0.72x1.04 0.96 y = 0.18x1.22 0.98 y = 0.55x1.07 0.99 y = 0.15x1.25 0.97
Oblique impacts y = 1.15x0.99 0.96 y = 0.84x1.04 0.96 y = 0.35x1.16 0.98 y = 0.85x1.03 0.96
Back impacts y = 1.94x0.94 0.94 y = 2.78x0.87 0.95 y = 2.14x0.92 0.92 N/A N/A
Front impacts y = 14.0x0.62 0.92 y = 12.7x0.63 0.90 y = 2.14x0.92 0.91 y = 5.09x0.75 0.90
Easton All data y = 1.67x0.93 0.88 y = 2.84x0.86 0.91 y = 0.95x1.00 0.85 y = 2.96x0.86 0.91
Side impacts y = 1.28x0.94 0.97 y = 1.51x0.93 0.99 y = 1.09x0.96 0.98 y = 0.55x1.09 0.99
Oblique impacts y = 0.60x1.09 1.00 y = 0.39x1.14 1.00 y = 0.25x1.17 0.78 y = 0.59x1.09 0.99
Back impacts y = 0.93x1.02 0.86 y = 2.34x0.89 0.98 y = 0.39x1.14 0.91 y = 2.83x0.85 0.98
Front impacts y = 5.46x0.76 0.97 y = 12.6x0.65 0.97 y = 1.56x0.94 0.97 y = 14.13x0.64 0.98
 1902

TABLE 2. Average absolute percent differences (6SD) in peak resultant linear acceleration (a) and peak resultant rotational velocity (b) for raw GFT measures, after
adjustment using power regression equations developed from the data for all impact directions combined, and after adjustment using impact direction-specific regression
equations.

Inside Top Sensor Outside Top Sensor Outside Right Sensor Outside Back Sensor

Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected

Corrected with direction- with all with direction- Corrected with direction- Corrected with direction-
with all data specific Raw data specific Raw with all data specific Raw with all data specific
Raw data regression regression data regression regression data regression regression data regression regression

(a)
Bauer
Side Impacts 11.1% (7.9%) 4.8% (4.1%) 5.3% (3.0%) 6.2% (2.8%)
Oblique Impacts 96.8% 26.6% 12.3% (8.0%) 120.5% 24.8% 22.0% (12.3%) 110.6% 28.3% 11.0% (8.5%) 112.4% 35.4% 12.8% (10.2%)
Front Impacts (65.9%) (22.9%) 10.9% (7.1%) (65.6%) (17.0%) 12.0% (7.5%) (82.9%) (30.8%) 11.0% (7.2%) (75.8%) (13.9%) 5.1% (4.5%)
Back Impacts 9.8% (7.5%) 9.6% (7.4%) 8.1% (6.0%) N/A
Easton
Side Impacts 4.8% (3.3%) 13.4% (9.0%) 3.5% (3.3%) 4.3% (2.8%)
Oblique Impacts 134.1% 28.4% 17.9% (15.4%) 153.7% 24.9% 8.6% (7.5%) 152.3% 37.0% 19.6% (19.6%) 158.6% 39.6% 15.8% (15.7%)
ALLISON et al.

Front Impacts (72.0%) (15.8%) 17.2% (8.8%) (86.6%) (22.4%) 19.1% (15.8%) (110.1%) (28.6%) 18.1% (23.4%) (124.1%) (33.5%) 9.4% (8.3%)
Back Impacts 21.5% (13.7%) 16.3% (11.1%) 23.0% (13.8%) 18.2% (13.7%)
(b)
Bauer
Side Impacts 6.5% (4.1%) 6.6% (4.0%) 2.8% (2.6%) 5,5% (4.5%)
Oblique Impacts 14.5% 13.6% 4.1% (5.9%) 14.3% 13.8% 6.0% (5.5%) 14.6% 14.2% 4.5% (3.8%) 15.0% 13.2% 5.0% (5.5%)
Front Impacts (9.9%) (11.0%) 8.8% (4.6%) (11.7%) (10.1%) 10.1% (6.2%) (9.4%) (9.4%) 9.2% (6.0%) (12.8%) (8.6%) 10.8% (5.4%)
Back Impacts 9.6% (5.6%) 8.1% (5.4%) 9.2% (6.9%) N/A
Easton
Side Impacts 6.3% (3.8%) 3.7% (3.0%) 4.2% (3.4%) 3.9% (3.0%)
Oblique Impacts 13.0% 12.9% 2.1% (1.1%) 10.6% 11.2% 2.3% (1.4%) 17.1% 15.4% 18.8% (9.5%) 9.2% 11.3% 3.5% (2.7%)
Front Impacts (8.1%) (8.3%) 6.7% (4.7%) (8.5%) (7.3%) 7.6% (3.2%) (14.2%) (11.4%) 6.3% (4.6%) (10.3%) (8.0%) 6.0% (3.1%)
Back Impacts 13.7% (7.3%) 4.9% (3.5%) 9.6% (9.9%) 4.8% (2.3%)
 Helmet-Based Measurement of Head Kinematics
Re-Akt helmet and from 11.2 to 15.4% for the Easton
S9 helmet. The average absolute errors in peak resul-
tant rotational velocity did not vary substantially by
sensor location, helmet brand, or impact direction.
The statistical model evaluating the relationship
between GFT peak kinematic measures and reference
kinematic measures for all of the impact directions
combined showed a signicant three-way interaction
between helmet brand, sensor location, and impact
direction. Since helmet brand alone had a statistically
signicant eect (p = 0.04) and this is a controllable
parameter in on-eld implementation, the data was
stratied by helmet brand for all other analyses. For
both the Easton and Bauer peak linear acceleration
data, there were signicant two-way interactions
between sensor location and impact direction (p <
0.0001). When the data was stratied by impact
direction to test for signicance of sensor location,
adjusted p values were signicant for all directions
(Table 3). Similarly, when the peak linear acceleration
data was stratied by sensor location to test for sig-
nicance of impact direction, adjusted p values were
signicant for all sensor locations (Table 3). Statistical
analysis of the peak rotational velocity data had sim-
ilar results for signicance of impact direction, but
some differences in signicance of sensor location.
While sensor location remained signicant in the
majority of impact directions, for front impacts to the
Bauer helmet, and for front and back impacts to the
Easton helmet, sensor location was not statistically
signicant (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated a helmet-based system con-
sisting of both accelerometers and gyroscopes and its
expected on-eld accuracy under impact conditions
similar to those used in the laboratory test setup. The
ndings highlight factors to consider when using this
system to collect real-world head impact kinematics,
including specic implications for both data collection
and data analysis.
For the version of GFT hardware and software
evaluated in this study, the raw data is not processed
through an in-built algorithm to transform the data to
the center of gravity of the head. As mentioned above,
this leads to large dierences in raw sensor measures
for linear acceleration compared to those measured at
the CG of the ATD for three primary reasons: the data
has not been transformed from the location on the
helmet to the center of gravity of the head, the energy
dissipation of the helmet has not been accounted for,
and there is some amount of sensor error. This study
was not designed to calculate the independent eects of
1903
these three contributions to the dierences observed.
Our study demonstrated that, combined, these factors
led to expectedly large average percent dierences in
raw peak resultant linear acceleration (over 100%), but
relatively small average percent dierences in raw peak
resultant rotational velocity (1015%). Because of
these large dierences in the raw linear acceleration
data, in using this version of the system to estimate
measures at the CG of the head it is important to
develop regression equations that describe the rela-
tionships between peak GFT measures and peak linear
acceleration ATD measures so that these can be used
to empirically adjust the data and improve linear
acceleration accuracy. This would require impact
testing on a given helmet brand-sensor location com-
bination as these controllable parameters signicantly
aect the relationship between peak head kinematics
and peak GFT measure. This particular helmet model
and sensor location should then be used for all players
on a given team to collect real-world data that will be
adjusted using the experimentally derived regressions.
Given that average absolute errors in peak linear
acceleration were larger for certain sensor locations,
even after adjustment using the all-impact direction
regression equations, such testing would ideally in-
clude multiple sensor location options. The best loca-
tion could then be determined by comparing average
absolute errors after data were corrected using the
regression method of choice (all impact directions
combined or direction-specic). An ideal choice for
sensor location would also be one that is less likely to
be directly impacted, such as the top of the helmet.16,19
Similar to evaluation of another helmet-based
accelerometer system,1 this study showed a statistically
signicant effect of impact direction on the relation-
ship between peak sensor-measured and reference
kinematics. One method to account for this nding in
real world implementation would be to determine the
impact direction on-ice and apply direction-specic
regressions to the data. This should result in the
smallest possible error, but may be logistically difcult
for some users. A more feasible approach for many
users may be to combine data from all impact direc-
tions and apply a single regression equation to the
data, but this approach results in larger error
(approximately 2040% for linear acceleration and 10
15% for rotational velocity). This combined direction
approach may be further improved by developing a
combined direction regression that weights the data
from the individual directions (front, back, side, top)
corresponding to the percentage of impacts in each
direction seen on ice.16,19
It is important to note that average absolute errors
in rotational kinematics, both for the raw data and
after correcting the data using direction-specic
1904 ALLISON et al.
TABLE 3. Summary of p values for statistical significance of impact direction and sensor location on the ratio of peak GFT
measure to peak corresponding HIII measure.
Bauer peak linear Easton peak linear
Significance of impact direction
Inside top sensor 0.0004* 0.0004*
Outside top sensor 0.0004* 0.0004*
Outside back sensor 0.0004* 0.0004*
Outside right sensor 0.0004* 0.0004*
Significance of sensor location
Side impact 0.0004* 0.0004*
Front impact 0.0016* 0.0004*
Back impact 0.0004* 0.0268*
Oblique impact 0.0004* 0.0004*
*Statistically significant.
regressions, were considerably lower for data from the
gyroscope-containing GFT (218%) than for similar
data (also after direction-specic calibration) from the
accelerometer-only HIT System for ice hockey
(1250%) found in a previous study.1 This is not a
direct comparison, as the GFT measures rotational
velocity while the HIT System calculated rotational
acceleration. Rotational acceleration data is inherently
noisier than measuring rotational velocity data, and
studies show that rotational velocity accurately pre-
dicts strains within the brain and thus is a good metric
for quantifying traumatic brain injury risk across the
spectrum of severity.28 Therefore, rotational velocity
rather than acceleration is likely a better measurement
choice for helmet-based systems. In terms of peak
resultant linear acceleration, there were slightly higher
average absolute errors in GFT measures after
adjustment using direction-specic regressions
(540%) than were previously found for the HIT
System for ice hockey after adjustment using direction-
specic regressions (530%). Given the evidence that
rotational measures are better predictors of diffuse
brain injury across the spectrum of severity,3,9,14,27
rotational accuracy is likely a higher priority.
The GFT is designed to estimate the azimuth and
elevation of the impact when it is calibrated to its spe-
cic location in the helmet. For the GFT software
version that was used in this analysis (gManager 1.10)
the algorithm to estimate azimuth and elevation was not
optimized to identify exact locations and therefore did
not always correspond well to the actual impact direc-
tion. We understand, however, that the algorithm to
quantify impact direction has since undergone sub-
stantial revision. Further research should be done to
verify the accuracy of GFT-estimated impact direction.
Limitations of this study center around the idea that
it does not incorporate the full range of impact sce-
narios that players may experience on-ice. A single
impact condition was tested over a range of speeds and
directions. One impacting surface was chosen to mimic
Bauer peak rotational Easton peak rotational
0.0004* 0.0004*
0.0004* 0.0012*
0.0004* 0.0024*
0.0004* 0.0004*
0.0020* 0.0004*
0.4604 0.0512
0.0004* 0.8636
0.0116* 0.0004*
the hard surfaces that may be encountered, such as the
boards or ice. However a player may also contact other
players or their equipment and this was not evaluated
in this study. Furthermore only a single helmet t was
used, which was chosen to most closely mimic the real-
world scenario and USA hockey recommendations.
This is a factor that varies by individual, and a study
by Jadischke et al. examined how helmet t may
inuence helmet-based measurement of head kine-
matics during impact.12
Before analyzing data collected using this system to
study the biomechanics of head impacts that lead to
mTBI, more work should be done to translate the
ndings from this study into practical strategies for
implementation. It would be benecial for future work
to include direct impacts to the sensor, as well as a
sensitivity analysis to determine how small changes in
impact direction aect the relationship between peak
sensor and reference kinematic measures. Further-
more, we understand that enhancements are continu-
ally being made to the GFT sensor and software to
improve accuracy, including in-built algorithms to
transform the data to the CG of the head; this study
evaluated sensor version GFT3.s.19 along with soft-
ware version gManager 1.10.
CONCLUSIONS
This study evaluated a helmet-based system consist-
ing of accelerometers and gyroscopes designed to collect
real-world data on the biomechanics of head impacts in
ice hockey. Under the conditions evaluated in this
study, the raw peak resultant linear acceleration mea-
sures exhibited expectedly large dierences compared to
reference measures as the data had not been trans-
formed to the CG, had not been adjusted to account for
helmet energy dissipation, and included some level of
sensor error. Therefore, if attempting to estimate mea-
sures at the CG of the head, it is necessary to adjust
 Helmet-Based Measurement of Head Kinematics
linear acceleration data collected using this system.
Adjustment using regressions resulted in average abso-
lute errors of 1015% if they were done on an impact
direction-specic basis, or 2540% if a regression
incorporating data from all impact directions was used.
Average percent dierences in raw peak resultant rota-
tional velocity were much lower, in the range of
1015%, suggesting that this sensor may be a particu-
larly valuable tool in measuring the important parameter
of rotational kinematics and represents advancement
over previous systems for a rotational metric. In the case
of rotational velocity, given that the raw data was an
excellent predictor of actual head kinematics, the
adjustment procedure via regression only slightly re-
duced the differences between the sensor measures and
reference ATD measures (to less than 10%).
The study identied factors that statistically inuence
the relationship between peak helmet sensor and refer-
ence measures, including the model of helmet, the sen-
sor location, and the direction of impact. A specic
helmet model and sensor location should be chosen if
implementing this technology for a given team. On-ice
use of this system should account for these factors, and
if interested in estimating the kinematics of the CG of
the head, analysis of the data should incorporate the
types of dierences quantied in this study. More work
should be done to characterize the necessary adjustment
factors for peak resultant linear acceleration before
analyzing data collected using this version of the system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by a National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and Fun-
damental Research Supplement, the Center for Child
Injury Prevention Studies, particularly the National
Highway Trac Safety Administration and Toyota
Collaborative Safety Research Center, and the SAFER
Vehicle and Trac Safety Centre. The sensors were
provided free of charge by GForceTracker Inc and
there is no nancial relationship between the authors,
Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, and GForce-
Tracker Inc. Dr. Arbogast serves as a consultant for
the National Football League Players Association
(NFLPA) on head injury biomechanics topics unre-
lated to this manuscript.
REFERENCES
1
Allison, M. A., Y. S. Kang, J. H. Bolte, M. R. Maltese, and
K. B. Arbogast. Validation of a helmet-based system to
measure head impact biomechanics in ice hockey. Med.
1905
Sci. Sports Exerc. 46(1):115123, 2014. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e3182a32d0d.
2
Brainard, L. L., J. G. Beckwith, J. J. Chu, et al. Gender
differences in head impacts sustained by collegiate ice
hockey players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 44(2):297304,
2012. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31822b0ab4.
3
Browne, K. D., X.-H. Chen, D. F. Meaney, and D. H.
Smith. Mild traumatic brain injury and diffuse axonal in-
jury in swine. J. Neurotrauma 28(9):17471755, 2011. doi:
10.1089/neu.2011.1913.
4
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nonfatal
traumatic brain injuries from sports and recreation activi-
tiesUnited States, 20012005. MMWR Morb. Mortal.
Wkl. Rep. 56(29):733737, 2007.
5
Crisco, J. J., R. Fiore, J. G. Beckwith, et al. Frequency and
location of head impact exposures in individual collegiate
football players. J. Athl. Train. 45(6):549559, 2010. doi:
10.4085/1062-6050-45.6.549.
6
Faul, M., L. Xu, M. M. Wald, and V. Coronado. Trau-
matic brain injury in the United States: emergency
department visits, hospitalizations and deaths 20022006.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
p. 7, 2010.
7
Funk, J. R., S. M. Duma, S. J. Manoogian, and S. Row-
son. Biomechanical risk estimates for mild traumatic brain
injury. Annu. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Automot. Med. 51:343361,
2007.
8
Funk, J. R., S. Rowson, R. W. Daniel, and S. M. Duma.
Validation of concussion risk curves for collegiate football
players derived from HITS data. Ann. Biomed. Eng.
40(1):7989, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10439-011-0400-8.
9
Gennarelli, T. A., L. E. Thibault, and A. K. Ommaya.
Pathophysiologic Responses to Rotational and Transla-
tional Accelerations of the Head, 1972. doi:10.4271/720970.
10
Guskiewicz, K. M., and J. P. Mihalik. Biomechanics of
sport concussion: quest for the elusive injury threshold.
Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 39(1):411, 2011. doi:10.1097/JES.
0b013e318201f53e.
11
USA Hockey. Equipment Sizing Guide. Available at:
http://www.usahockey.com/Sizing_Guide.aspx. Accessed
July 12, 2012.
12
Jadischke, R., D. C. Viano, N. Dau, A. I. King, and J.
McCarthy. On the accuracy of the head impact telemetry
(HIT) System used in football helmets. J. Biomech.
46(13):23102315, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.05.030.
13
Konrad, C., A. J. Geburek, F. Rist, et al. Long-term cog-
nitive and emotional consequences of mild traumatic brain
injury. Psychol. Med. 41(6):11971211, 2011. doi:
10.1017/S0033291710001728.
14
Meaney, D. F., D. H. Smith, D. T. Ross, and T. A. Gen-
narelli. Diffuse axonal injury in the miniature pig: biome-
chanical development and injury threshold. ASME
Crashworth. Occup. Prot. Transp. Syst. 29:169175, 1993.
15
Mihalik, J., D. Bell, S. Marshall, and K. Guskiewicz.
Measurement of head impacts in collegiate football players:
an investigation of positional and event-type differences.
Neurosurgery 61(6):12291235, 2007. doi:10.1227/01.
NEU.0000280147.37163.30.
16
Mihalik, J. P., K. M. Guskiewicz, J. A. Jeffries, R. M.
Greenwald, and S. W. Marshall. Characteristics of head
impacts sustained by youth ice hockey players. Proc Inst
Mech Eng Part P J Sport Eng Technol. 222(1):4552, 2008.
doi:10.1243/17543371JSET4.
17
Mihalik, J. P., R. M. Greenwald, J. T. Blackburn, R. C.
Cantu, S. W. Marshall, and K. M. Guskiewicz. Effect of
1906 ALLISON et al.
infraction type on head impact severity in youth ice hockey.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 42(8):14311438, 2010. doi:
10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181d2521a.
18
Mihalik, J. P., K. M. Guskiewicz, S. W. Marshall, R. M.
Greenwald, J. T. Blackburn, and R. C. Cantu. Does cer-
vical muscle strength in youth ice hockey players affect
head impact biomechanics? Clin. J. Sport Med. 21(5):416
421, 2011. doi:10.1097/JSM.0B013E31822C8A5C.
19
Mihalik, J. P., K. M. Guskiewicz, S. W. Marshall, J. T.
Blackburn, R. C. Cantu, and R. M. Greenwald. Head impact
biomechanics in youth hockey: comparisons across playing
position, event types, and impact locations. Ann. Biomed.
Eng. 40(1):141149, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10439-011-0405-3.
20
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (U.S.).
Report to Congress on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the
United States: Steps to Prevent a Serious Public Health
Problem. Atlanta, GA, 2003, p. 26.
21
Ocwieja, K. E., J. P. Mihalik, S. W. Marshall, J. D.
Schmidt, S. C. Trulock, and K. M. Guskiewicz. The effect
of play type and collision closing distance on head impact
biomechanics. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40(1):9096, 2011. doi:
10.1007/s10439-011-0401-7.
22
Padgaonkar, A. J., K. W. Krieger, and A. I. King.
Measurement of angular acceleration of a rigid body using
linear accelerometers. J. Appl. Mech. 42(3):552, 1975.
23
Reed, N., T. Taha, M. Keightley, et al. Measurement of
head impacts in youth ice hockey players. Int. J. Sports
Med. 31(11):826833, 2010. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1263103.
24
Rowson, S., and S. M. Duma. Development of the STAR
evaluation system for football helmets: integrating player
head impact exposure and risk of concussion. Ann. Biomed.
Eng. 39(8):21302140, 2011. doi:10.1007/s10439-011-0322-5.
25
Sterr, A., K. A. Herron, C. Hayward, and D. Montaldi.
Are mild head injuries as mild as we think? Neurobehav-
ioral concomitants of chronic post-concussion syndrome.
BMC Neurol. 6:7, 2006. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-6-7.
26
Stojsih, S., M. Boitano, M. Wilhelm, and C. Bir. A pro-
spective study of punch biomechanics and cognitive func-
tion for amateur boxers. Br. J. Sports Med. 44(10):725730,
2010. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.052845.
27
Takhounts, E. G., S. A. Ridella, V. Hasija, et al. Investi-
gation of traumatic brain injuries using the next generation
of simulated injury monitor (SIMon) nite element head
model. Stapp Car Crash J. 52:131, 2008.
28
Takhounts, E. G., M. J. Craig, K. Moorhouse, J. McF-
adden, and V. Hasija. Development of brain injury criteria
(Br IC). Stapp Car Crash J. 57:243266, 2013.