The new technology claiming to prevent concussions in sport | 7.30

Key Concepts

• Concussion: A traumatic brain injury caused by a bump, blow, or jolt to the head that causes the head and brain to move rapidly back and forth.
• Accelerometers: Sensors embedded in wearable technology designed to measure the force, acceleration, and impact of physical collisions.
• Brain Compression/Strain: The physical deformation of brain tissue during an impact, which is a primary indicator of potential injury.
• Head Impact Surveillance Systems: Technologies designed to monitor and record the frequency and severity of head impacts in real-time.
• Existential Risk: The concern that the prevalence of concussions poses a threat to the long-term viability of contact sports.

1. Electronic Mouthguards: Monitoring Impact

The Hit IQ mouthguard is being trialed in schools to address the issue of "invisible" impacts—hits that occur during play that are not immediately obvious to coaches or referees.

• Mechanism: The device uses embedded accelerometers to measure the force of impacts. It calculates potential brain compression and strain, transmitting this data to a mobile application.
• Threshold System: The app generates a score from 0 to 100 for every impact. A score exceeding 75 triggers a requirement for the player to undergo further medical assessment.
• Perspective: Damian Haw, representing the technology provider, argues that while the device cannot replace a doctor, it serves as a critical surveillance tool to flag players who might otherwise remain on the field despite sustaining a significant hit.

2. Protective Headgear: The "Game Gear" Innovation

Industrial designer Graeme Ati has developed "Game Gear," a helmet designed to mitigate the severity of impacts.

• Design Philosophy: The helmet utilizes a spherical structure with internal rubber spheres. The goal is to provide "progressive resistance" to an impact, spreading the force across a wider surface area rather than concentrating it on a single point of the skull.
• Current Status: The product is currently undergoing a field trial with the ME Trauma Group, involving 600 athletes who wear the gear intermittently to compare impact data.
• Limitations: Ati acknowledges that while lab results show a reduction in impact force, the device has not yet been clinically proven to prevent concussions in human subjects.

3. Scientific Skepticism and Regulatory Concerns

Experts in neuropsychology and neurology emphasize a cautious approach toward these emerging technologies.

• Lack of Evidence: Neuropsychologist Vicky Anderson notes that while there are many devices on the market, few possess rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence proving they can accurately predict brain injury.
• Medical Role: Neurologist Stuart McDonald stresses that these devices are "add-ons" and should not be used as diagnostic tools. They cannot definitively confirm or rule out a concussion.
• Marketing vs. Reality: There is significant concern regarding the high cost of these products—Hit IQ mouthguards retail for ~$300 and Game Gear helmets for over $200—compared to standard equipment. Critics argue that until efficacy is proven, the marketing claims may be ahead of the scientific reality.

4. The Broader Context of Contact Sports

• Parental Concerns: Research from the CSIRO indicates that fear of concussion is leading some parents to withdraw their children from contact sports.
• The "Invisible" Injury: A major argument for the adoption of surveillance technology is that many traumatic brain injuries go undetected. Proponents argue that even if these systems are not perfect, they are superior to the current standard of relying solely on the "naked eye."
• The Australian Sports Commission Position: The commission maintains that current evidence suggests protective wear (helmets/mouthguards) offers little to no benefit in the actual prevention of concussions, as they cannot stop the internal movement of the brain within the skull.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The industry is currently at a crossroads between the urgent demand for safety solutions and the slow, methodical pace of clinical validation. While electronic mouthguards and innovative helmets offer promising methods for monitoring and potentially mitigating impact forces, they are not yet proven to prevent concussions. The consensus among medical professionals is that these devices should be viewed as surveillance tools to assist in decision-making rather than diagnostic devices or definitive preventative measures. The primary challenge remains bridging the gap between successful laboratory impact testing and the complex, real-world reality of human brain injury.