Various studies have characterized head kinematics in specific everyday activities by looking at linear and/or rotational acceleration characteristics, but each has evaluated a limited number of activities. Furthermore, these studies often present dissimilar and sometimes incomplete descriptions of the resulting kinematics, so the characteristics of normal everyday activities as a whole are not easily collectively summarized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the literature investigating head kinematics associated with everyday activities and to generate a comprehensive kinematic boundary envelope describing these motions. The envelope constructed constitutes the current state of published knowledge regarding ‘normally occurring’ head accelerations. The envelope of kinematics represents activities commonly encountered and posing zero to minimal risk of injury to healthy individuals. Several kinematic measures, including linear accelerations, rotational velocities, and rotational accelerations, one may encounter as a result of normal everyday activities are summarized. A total of 11 studies encompassing 49 unique activities were evaluated. Examples of activities include sitting in a chair, jumping off a step, running, and walking. The peak resultant linear accelerations of the head reported in the literature were all less than 15 g, while the peak resultant rotational accelerations and rotational velocities approach 1375 rad/s2 and 12.8 rad/s, respectively. The resulting design envelope can be used to understand the range of acceleration magnitudes a typical active person can expect to experience. The results are also useful to compare to other activities exposing the head to motion or impact including sports, military, automotive, aerospace and other sub-injurious and injurious events.
Brain injury Finite element model Strain Daily head accelerations Kinematics
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank Medtronic for their support and collaboration during this project.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was funded by Medtronic.
Allen ME, Weir-Jones I, Eng P et al (1994) Acceleration perturbations of daily living: a comparison to ‘Whiplash’. Spine 19:1285–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimpara H, Nakahira Y, Iwamoto M et al (2006) Investigation of anteroposterior head-neck responses during severe frontal impacts using a brain-spinal cord complex FE model. Stapp Car Crash J 50:509–544Google Scholar
King AI, Yang KH, Zhang L, Hardy W, Viano DC (2003) Is head injury caused by linear or angular acceleration?. Proc IRCOBI Conf, LisbonGoogle Scholar
Kleiven S (2006) Evaluation of head injury criteria using a finite element model validated against experiments on localized brain motion, intracerebral acceleration, and intracranial pressure. Int J Crashworthiness 11:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiven S (2007) Predictors for traumatic brain injuries evaluated through accident reconstructions. Stapp Car Crash J 51:81–114Google Scholar
Siegmund GP, Guskiewicz KM, Marshall SW et al (2016) Laboratory validation of two wearable sensor systems for measuring head impact severity in football players. Ann Biomed Eng 44:1257–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban JE, Davenport EM, Golman AJ et al (2013) Head impact exposure in youth football: high school ages 14 to 18 years and cumulative impact analysis. Ann Biomed Eng 41:2474–2487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban JE, Kelley ME, Espeland MA, et al (2018) In-season variations in head impact exposure among youth football players. J Neurotrauma 36(2):275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang L, Yang KH, King AI (2004) A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury. J Biomech Eng 126:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao W, Ji S (2016) Brain strain uncertainty due to shape variation in and simplification of head angular velocity profiles. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 16:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar