Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices

23Citations
Citations of this article
56Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Wearable devices are increasingly used to measure real-world head impacts and study brain injury mechanisms. These devices must undergo validation testing to ensure they provide reliable and accurate information for head impact sensing, and controlled laboratory testing should be the first step of validation. Past validation studies have applied varying methodologies, and some devices have been deployed for on-field use without validation. This paper presents best practices recommendations for validating wearable head kinematic devices in the laboratory, with the goal of standardizing validation test methods and data reporting. Key considerations, recommended approaches, and specific considerations were developed for four main aspects of laboratory validation, including surrogate selection, test conditions, data collection, and data analysis. Recommendations were generated by a group with expertise in head kinematic sensing and laboratory validation methods and reviewed by a larger group to achieve consensus on best practices. We recommend that these best practices are followed by manufacturers, users, and reviewers to conduct and/or review laboratory validation of wearable devices, which is a minimum initial step prior to on-field validation and deployment. We anticipate that the best practices recommendations will lead to more rigorous validation of wearable head kinematic devices and higher accuracy in head impact data, which can subsequently advance brain injury research and management.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gabler, L., Patton, D., Begonia, M., Daniel, R., Rezaei, A., Huber, C., … Wu, L. (2022). Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 50(11), 1356–1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-022-03066-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free