Daniel Comstock, Steffanie Fisher, Mary Brodhagen, Katelyn Hartung, Matt McNutt,
1
2
1
Desiree Budd , Michael Donnelly , J. Johanna Hopp
1 C-Nerve – University of Wisconsin – Stout, USA
2Sulcus Scientific Consulting LLC
Methods
Background
Memory-Guided Task
● Studies show long-term detrimental
cognitive effects of sports-related
concussions.
● Subjects:
Control N = 9
Football N = 8
● EEG:
EGI 64 channel net
● Subjects:
Control N = 6
Football N = 4
● Video-oculography:
SR Research Eyelink 1000
● Problems occur with maintaining goalrelated information active in short-term
memory.
Experimental Paradigm
Experimental Paradigm
800 – 1200 ms
● 4 blocks, 100 trials each
● 80% Standard tone – 1000hz
● 10% Distractor tone – 500hz
● 10% Target tone – 2000hz
● 1.5 to 2.5 seconds between tones
100 ms
● Few Studies have assessed the effects
of repetitive, non-concussive head
impacts, especially in adolescents, when
developing brains may be more vulnerable.
● We compared male college students who
played American football (contact sport) to
those who were in non-contact sports (ex:
Track and Field) during the ages of 14 – 18.
Oddball Task
600 – 800 ms
* Cue to go
● Participants pressed key only when Target tone
heard
Target appears 1500 ms
after saccade lands
Starting position for next
trial
● Horizontal eye movements only
● 12 & 15 degree saccades
● Minimum 500 total trials
Results
Midline ERPs
ERPs at Pz
● Participants performed goal-directed
cognitive tasks including an Auditory
Oddball task and Memory-guided saccade
task.
Latency (ms)
400
Control
Football
350
300
Fz
250
Football
200
150
100
Cz
50
0
● This study focuses on examining the
difference in P300b during the Auditory
Oddball task, and the difference in
performance, specifically latency and
accuracy, during the Memory-guided task.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 AVG
Control
F1 F2 F3 F4 AVG
Football
Pz
Control
Tones
Standard
Distractor
Target
1.2
1.1
1
Gain
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Target at Pz
0.5
0.4
0.3
Subjects
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 AVG
Control
● Male, current ages 19-31yo (Ages 14-18
during sport participation)
● No previous concussion diagnosis
● Not current collegiate athlete
Average
Latency (ms)
Average SD
(ms)
Control
209 +/- 37
70 +/- 18
Football
228 +/- 27
82 +/- 21
LATENCY
● Non-contact:
Control (ex: Track & Field)
● Contact:
American Football
F1 F2 F3 F4 AVG
Football
Average
Gain
Average SD
Control
.82 +/- .07
.15 +/- .04
Football
.86 +/- .06
.15 +/- .02
GAIN
● No significant difference
between Football and
Control.
● No significant difference
between Football and
Control.
● Football tends to have
higher latency and higher
variability.
● Gains and variability
appear to be similar
Conclusions
● Non-conclusive differences between performance for Football
vs.Control during the Memory-Guided Saccade Task
● Non-conclusive differences between ERPs for Football vs.
Control during the Auditory Oddball task
● Trends suggest possible difference and encourage more indepth investigation
Football
Control
LATENCY
Area of Curve
● Slight, but not significant
difference in peak Target
values at Pz between
Football and Control
● Football has slightly
greater area of Target at
Pz (P300b) than Control
Further Research
● Investigate additional saccade types
(ex: Antisaccades)
● Include concussion group for comparison
● Examine less discernable tones
● Examine visual oddball task
Acknowledgements: National Science Foundation TUES (DUE#1020906), and The University of Wisconsin – Stout, Student Research Grant Program
Special thanks to: Taylor Adams, Ryan Kucksdorf, Nate Olinger, Tim Pastika, Kyle Slawson, Cody Zimmerman for their assistance on data collection and analysis