Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33132870›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020

Methodological Problems With Online Concussion Testing.

Jameson Holden, Eric Francisco, Anna Tommerdahl, Rachel Lensch, Bryan Kirsch, Laila Zai, Alan J Pearce, Oleg V Favorov, Robert G Dennis, Mark Tommerdahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Changes in processing speed during early abstinence from alcohol dependence.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Article
  7. Younger, drunk, and fast: Paradoxical rapid reaction time in hazardous drinkers.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jameson HoldenCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Eric FranciscoCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Anna TommerdahlCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Rachel LenschCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Bryan KirschCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Laila ZaiLucent Research, Denver, CO, United States.
Alan J PearceCollege of Health Science and Engineering, LaTrobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Oleg V FavorovDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Robert G DennisCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.
Mark TommerdahlCortical Metrics LLC, Carrboro, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reaction time testing is widely used in online computerized concussion assessments, and most concussion studies utilizing the metric have demonstrated varying degrees of difference between concussed and non-concussed individuals. The problem with most of these online concussion assessments is that they predominantly rely on consumer grade technology. Typical administration of these reaction time tests involves presenting a visual stimulus on a computer monitor and prompting the test subject to respond as quickly as possible via keypad or computer mouse. However, inherent delays and variabilities are introduced to the reaction time measure by both computer and associated operating systems that the concussion assessment tool is installed on. The authors hypothesized systems that are typically used to collect concussion reaction time data would demonstrate significant errors in reaction time measurements. To remove human bias, a series of experiments was conducted robotically to assess timing errors introduced by reaction time tests under four different conditions. In the first condition, a visual reaction time test was conducted by flashing a visual stimulus on a computer monitor. Detection was via photodiode and mechanical response was delivered via computer mouse. The second condition employed a mobile device for the visual stimulus, and the mechanical response was delivered to the mobile device's touchscreen. The third condition simulated a tactile reaction time test, and mechanical response was delivered via computer mouse. The fourth condition also simulated a tactile reaction time test, but response was delivered to a dedicated device designed to store the interval between stimulus delivery and response, thus bypassing any problems hypothesized to be introduced by computer and/or computer software. There were significant differences in the range of responses recorded from the four different conditions with the reaction time collected from visual stimulus on a mobile device being the worst and the device with dedicated hardware designed for the task being the best. The results suggest that some of the commonly used visual tasks on consumer grade computers could be (and have been) introducing significant errors for reaction time testing and that dedicated hardware designed for the reaction time task is needed to minimize testing errors.

Indexed as

concussionconcussion testingintraindividual reaction time variabilityonline cognitive testingonline concussion testingreaction timereaction time variability

Identifiers

PMID33132870
PMCPMC7559397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.