Back

Investigating the Role of Neck Muscle Activation and Neck Damping Characteristics in Brain Injury Mechanism

Bahreinizad, H.; Chowdhury, S.

2024-01-26 bioengineering
10.1101/2023.11.15.567289 bioRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to investigate the role of neck muscle activity and neck damping characteristics in traumatic brain injury (TBI) mechanisms. MethodsWe used a previously validated head-neck finite element (FE) model that incorporates various components such as scalp, skull, cerebrospinal fluid, brain, muscles, ligaments, cervical vertebrae, and intervertebral discs. Impact scenarios included a Golf ball impact, NBDL linear acceleration, and Zhangs linear and rotational accelerations. Three muscle activation strategies (no-activation, low-to-medium, and high activation levels) and two neck damping levels by perturbing intervertebral disc properties (high: hyper-viscoelastic and low: hyper-elastic) strategies were examined. We employed Head Injury Criterion (HIC), Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC), and maximum principal strain (MPS) as TBI measures. ResultsIncreased neck muscle activation consistently reduced the values of all TBI measures in Golf ball impact (HIC: 4%-7%, BrIC: 11%-25%, and MPS (occipital): 27%-50%) and NBDL study (HIC: 64%-69%, BrIC: 3%-9%, and MPS (occipital): 6%-19%) simulations. In Zhangs study, TBI metric values decreased with the increased muscle activation from no-activation to low-to-medium (HIC: 74%-83%, BrIC: 27%-27%, and MPS (occipital): 60%-90%) and then drastically increased with further increases to the high activation level (HIC: 288%-507%, BrIC: 1%-25%, and MPS (occipital): 23%-305%). Neck damping changes from low to high decreased all values of TBI metrics, particularly in Zhangs study (up to 40% reductions). ConclusionOur results underscore the pivotal role of neck muscle activation and neck damping in TBI mitigation and holds promise to advance effective TBI prevention and protection strategies for diverse applications.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.7%
2
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.0%
3
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
4
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.4%
7
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
8
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
9
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
10
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
11
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
12
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
13
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
15
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
17
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
22
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%