ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Reliability and Validity of Inertial Sensor Assisted Reaction Time Measurement Tools among Healthy Young Adults.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced Reaction Time Measurement System Based on 3D Accelerometer in Athletics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of movement reaction time (RT) as a sideline assessment is a valuable biomarker for mild TBI or concussion. However, such assessments require controlled laboratory environments, which may not be feasible for sideline testing during a game. Body-worn wearable devices are advantageous as being cost-effective, easy to don and use, wirelessly transmit data, and ensure unhindered movement performance. This study aimed to develop a Drop-stick Test System (DTS) with a wireless inertial sensor and confirm its reliability for different standing conditions (Foam versus No Foam) and task types (Single versus Dual), and postures (Standing versus sitting). Fourteen healthy young participants (seven females, seven males; age 24.7 ± 2.6 years) participated in this study. The participants were asked to catch a falling stick attached to the sensor during a drop test. Reaction Times (RTs) were calculated from data for each trial from DTS and laboratory camera system (gold standard). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 3,k) were computed to determine inter-instrument reliability. The RT measurements from participants using the camera system and sensor-based DTS showed moderate to good inter-instrument reliability with an overall ICC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85). Bland-Altman plots and 95% levels of agreement revealed a bias where the DTS underestimated RT by approximately 50 ms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.