Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Wearable Tracking of Eye and Body Movements During Breaching Training: Towards Real-Time Blast Injury Monitoring

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Blast exposure as low as 0.25 psi leaves a measurable trace in blinks, gait, and balance.

desk verdict A useful field study with a real validation design, but the headline 0.25-psi threshold is a post-hoc selection artifact and should not be cited as a physiological limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09508 v1 pith:RMXEUVMK submitted 2025-05-14 eess.SP

Jeremy P. Kemmerer , James R. Williamson , Joseph Kim , Elizabeth Halford , Hrishikesh M. Rao , Christopher J. Smalt This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords low-levelblastoverpressurewearablesensorselectrooculographygaitanalysisbalancedose-responsemodelbraininjurymonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a body-worn sensor kit can continuously track both blast exposure and the body's physiological reactions during military breaching training, and that a machine-learning model fusing eye-blink, gait, and balance signals turns those reactions into a single risk score. When tested on instructors whose data were held out during model training, the fused score predicted each session's cumulative blast exposure with Spearman R = 0.60. The authors further claim that blast events as weak as 0.25 psi peak pressure are associated with measurable physiological changes, well below the current 4 psi single-event guideline. A case-study subject with years-long declining reaction times consistently showed a sharp rise in risk score after roughly a dozen low-level blasts per session. If right, this gives a way to warn individuals mid-training rather than relying only on sparse before-and-after cognitive tests.

What carries the argument

The central object is the GMM staircase regression model: an ensemble of Gaussian mixture models, each trained to separate higher-exposure sessions from lower-exposure sessions at a different percentile threshold, whose combined log-likelihood ratio becomes the risk score. Feeding it are feature change scores produced by an online z-scoring method with recursive first and second moment estimates (Equations 2 and 3), applied to blink duration, saccade amplitude, gait time-delay-embedding eigenspectra, and balance path length. Fusion is a simple averaging of per-feature risk scores at the session level. This machinery converts continuous, noisy wearable signals into a scalar risk score that can be correlated with cumulative blast metrics across threshold levels.

What would settle it

Collect matched sessions where total time, physical workload, and heat are held constant while the number of blast events above 0.25 psi varies, for example by changing standoff distance or charge size within the same breaching drill. The paper predicts the fused risk score should track blast count even when session duration and exertion are matched; if the score instead tracks duration or workload, the claim that 0.25 psi events directly drive physiology collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a dose-response model can be built from wearable physiology alone: the 'dose' is a cumulative blast-exposure metric (blast count, cumulative peak pressure, positive impulse, or time-averaged sound level) computed at seven peak-pressure thresholds, and the 'response' is a continuous risk score derived from online z-scored changes in blink duration, saccade amplitude, gait dynamics, and balance path length. At a 160 dB SPL (0.25 psi) event threshold, blast count produced the highest dose-response correlation, and correlations dropped sharply when only stronger events (170 dB SPL and above) were retained. The paper also identifies one instructor whose blink and balance risk scores rose rapidly and consistently after low-level exposure across multiple years, while the subject's exposure was unremarkable compared with peers, supporting the idea that individual susceptibility varies and can be detected physiologically.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that cumulative blast overpressure, not fatigue, heat, noise, or physical exertion, is what drives the extra physiological change the model picks up beyond exposure duration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dose-response model holds, a wearable can flag an individual's elevated physiological response during a training session, enabling intervention before a post-session cognitive test would reveal a problem.
  • Cumulative blast measures (event count or accumulated peak pressure above 0.25 psi) carry information beyond exposure duration alone, so safety limits based only on time on the range or on a single peak-pressure ceiling are incomplete.
  • The same physiology can expose individual susceptibility: the case-study subject's risk score rose steeply after about 12 low-level events on multiple training days spanning several years, while his measured exposure was average for the cohort.
  • Fusing accelerometry with one EOG channel improved prediction at the 160 dB threshold, while adding a second EOG channel did not improve accuracy in the sessions where it was available.
  • Across the four dose metrics, blast exposure was consistently associated with shorter blink durations, reduced gait complexity, and increased high-frequency movement during low-motion periods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An immediate extension the paper leaves implicit: since same-day ANAM change scores were not significantly predicted by blast metrics in the 23 available sessions, the fused physiology risk score could be tested as a faster, same-day surrogate for the cognitive changes that ANAM captures only when administered pre- and post-training.
  • The 0.25 psi result is a group-level correlation, not an individual injury threshold; a conservative reading is that dosimeters capable of recording events below 1 psi are necessary to build meaningful cumulative dose metrics, even if individual injury thresholds differ.
  • Because the susceptible subject's blink and balance scores rose consistently after roughly 12 low-level events across separate years, a prospective protocol could screen for susceptibility by watching for repeated rapid rises in those scores, rather than waiting for a long-term reaction-time decline.
  • The sharp drop in correlation when events below 170 dB are excluded suggests that commercial blast gauges with trigger thresholds near 1 psi may systematically miss the exposure events that matter most for physiological response; replicating this with another dosimeter would provide a direct test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a wearable system that records blast overpressure together with eye (EOG), gait, and balance (accelerometry) signals during Special Forces breaching training, and uses these signals to build per-feature risk scores via a GMM-staircase regression trained to discriminate exposure levels. The authors evaluate the fused risk score with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation, report a held-out Spearman correlation of R=0.60 between the fused score and cumulative blast measures, perform a sensor-ablation study, and describe a single case-study subject with deteriorating ANAM reaction-time scores who showed rapid changes in blink-based risk scores after low-level blast events. The central claims are that blast events as low as 0.25 psi (160 dB SPL) are associated with acute physiological changes, that blast exposure is a direct predictor of these changes, and that the wearable approach is a viable complement to sparse neurocognitive assessments in austere environments.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the contribution is practically significant: it would provide a fieldable, individualized, real-time method for monitoring acute physiological responses to low-level blast, addressing a real gap in occupational blast-exposure management. The study has notable strengths: leave-one-subject-out evaluation, a sensor-ablation analysis, a larger dataset than the authors' prior work, and evaluation of multiple cumulative dose metrics. The risk-score construction is transparently a supervised predictive model, and the held-out correlation is a legitimate predictive-validity result rather than an independent discovery. However, the headline 0.25 psi threshold is selected as the maximum over a grid of four dose metrics and seven thresholds, the causal interpretation is under-controlled for time-varying confounders, and the case study is a single post-hoc observation. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's strong threshold and causal claims, although they are fixable by reframing and additional analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The 160 dB SPL / 0.25 psi threshold claim is identified as the maximum Spearman correlation over four cumulative blast metrics and seven peak-pressure thresholds (28 conditions). Because the thresholds are highly correlated and no multiple-comparison correction, confidence interval, or independent replication is reported, the maximum-over-grid correlation can exceed the exposure-duration baseline even under a null model. The paper should either provide corrected inference (e.g., permutation-based threshold-selection p-values), validate the threshold on a held-out set or a second cohort, or explicitly reframe 0.25 psi as a hypothesis-generating observation. As written, the abstract and conclusion do not support the strength of the threshold claim.
  2. [Section 3.2] The argument that blast exposure is a 'direct predictor' because blast-metric correlations exceed exposure-duration correlations is not sufficient. Exposure duration is only one of several confounds that increase with training load; blast count, cumulative peak pressure, cumulative impulse, and LZeq8hr are also proxies for fatigue, heat exposure, physical exertion, noise, and other stressors that can drive the same physiological changes. Section 4.2's acknowledgement that physiology changes are non-specific is in tension with this causal claim. To support the conclusion, the analysis should adjust for session length and other available load markers, or demonstrate that the physiological response tracks blast events in a temporally specific way within sessions.
  3. [Section 3.1] The case-study subject was selected post hoc: the authors first fit ANAM reaction-time trends across 29 subjects, identified four with significant positive slopes, and then searched their physiology data for anomalous changes. One subject is then presented as evidence of individual susceptibility and is featured in the abstract and conclusion. This is a single-subject, post-hoc observation with no pre-specified criterion or correction for multiple comparisons. It should be clearly labeled as an illustrative, hypothesis-generating case and removed from the abstract unless it is independently validated.
  4. [Table 2 and Section 3.3] The headline held-out R=0.60 also inherits the threshold-selection issue: the ablation table reports the 160 dB configuration chosen from the 28-condition search. The reported improvement from adding one EOG channel is therefore assessed at a threshold selected using the full data. The ablation comparison should be reported at a fixed threshold, an average over thresholds, or a threshold selected within the training folds only, so that the sensor-fusion conclusion is not confounded by the same selection effect.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'electrooculuography' should be 'electrooculography'.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Figure 3] The text states 'As can be see in Figure 3 (d)' and the figure caption contains an incomplete phrase 'indicated by in order in the bottom row'; both need correction.
  3. [Section 2.5] Equation (1) and the gait-segmentation notation are poorly typeset ('nX', 'σm(t)2'); the path-length summation and variance thresholds should be rendered unambiguously.
  4. [Section 2.7] Equation (2) has unclear notation: the symbol 'q' appears to denote a square root, and the denominator's parentheses should be checked so that 1/w(n) is unambiguously inside the square-root term.
  5. [Section 3.1] The case-study text gives a threshold of 'greater than 155 dB SPL' for counting low-level blast events, whereas the main dose-response analysis identifies 160 dB SPL; the inconsistency should be explained or reconciled.
  6. [Section 2.9 and Table 2] The session counts differ across modalities (91 sessions for balance and blink, 79 for gait, 36 for saccades); the caption and ablation table should state clearly that correlations are computed on different session subsets. Clarify whether the 91-session rows in Table 2 use only sessions with both modalities or all available sessions for that configuration.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The fused risk score is supervised on blast-exposure labels and the 0.25-psi threshold is the maximum over a 28-condition search on the same sessions, so the headline dose-response threshold is partly a self-consistency and selection result rather than an independent physiological discovery.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.8 (Mapping Feature Changes into Risk Scores) and Section 3.2 (Dose-Response Models for Significant Blast Events)]
    "The risk score produced by the GMM staircase for each feature modality is a log-likelihood ratio, which is based on the sum of likelihoods across the ensemble of higher and lower exposure models, trained on the set of yt thresholds. ... Figure 4 shows Spearman's correlations of cumulative dose levels for each session with the maximum physiology-based risk score (response), obtained by fusing the gait, balance, and blink feature modalities as described previously."

    By construction, the risk score is an estimate of blast exposure: each GMM in the staircase is trained to discriminate higher from lower exposure labels y_t, and the score is a log-likelihood ratio of 'higher exposure' versus 'lower exposure' models. Correlating this score with cumulative dose therefore evaluates how well the model reconstructs its own training target. The leave-one-subject-out split provides a genuine generalization check, but it does not make the correlation an independent physiological response: a high Spearman R here is a supervised model-performance statistic, not an unbiased estimate of a dose-response relationship. Presenting the score as 'response' and the correlation as evidence for a threshold converts a training-target fit into a discovery.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Figure 4, and Discussion]
    "Dose-response modeling and correlation analysis were performed for all four blast metrics and seven threshold levels to identify peak overpressure thresholds for physiologically significant blast events. ... A threshold of 160 dB SPL (0.25 PSI) showed the highest correlations with physiology-based risk scores, suggesting events at this level (and above) are important to predict the physiological effects of blast exposure."

    The 160 dB / 0.25 psi threshold is the maximum over 4 blast metrics × 7 peak-pressure thresholds = 28 correlations computed on the same 91 sessions used to evaluate the model. No multiple-comparison correction, confidence interval, or independent replication is reported. The same selection determines the Table 2 configuration and the headline R=0.60 (160 dB blast count with Accel + 1 EOG). The chosen threshold is therefore an optimized parameter of the analysis pipeline, presented as a discovered physiological threshold; the 'as low as 0.25 psi' claim is forced by the argmax selection rather than independently predicted.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3.2, paragraph beginning 'The best-performing blast measures...']
    "The best-performing blast measures showed significantly higher correlation with risk scores than blast duration alone. Further, we computed correlations between exposure time duration and the four blast outcome measures at the 160 dB threshold level, finding correlations ranging between 0.24 and 0.36, which is the same level of correlation we found between time duration and physiology-based risk scores."

    This comparison is biased by construction: the physiology-based risk score was trained to predict blast-exposure metrics, while the duration reference is a separate model trained to predict duration. Higher correlation with blast metrics than with duration is partly a consequence of the model's training target, not an independent physiological contrast. Moreover, blast count and cumulative peak pressure correlate with duration (0.24–0.36), so a blast-trained model can exploit the same fatigue- or exertion-related physiology that drives duration correlations. The conclusion that blast exposure is 'a direct predictor... rather than an indirect correlation with some alternative predictor like fatigue' is not established by this comparison.

full rationale

The paper is not a case of pure self-citation circularity: the physiological features (blink duration, gait TDE complexity, balance path length) are independently measured, and the leave-one-subject-out protocol gives genuine out-of-subject predictive content. The held-out R=0.60 and the single-subject ANAM case study provide some independent evidence. However, the central dose-response threshold claim is constructed from two fitted elements. First, the fused risk score is a supervised log-likelihood ratio trained to discriminate high versus low blast exposure; correlating this score with blast dose is partly a self-consistency check of the model's own training target. Second, the 0.25 psi threshold is the maximum over a 28-condition search on the same 91 sessions, with no multiple-comparison correction, so the headline threshold is an optimized fit parameter. The duration comparison does not repair this because the blast-trained model is not compared fairly against a physiology-independent baseline. These issues make the key quantitative threshold claim partially circular, though the paper's broader wearable-monitoring demonstration retains independent content. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; references [6,8] are prior methods papers by the same group, but the present analysis applies them to a new dataset.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions that wearable physiology reflects blast-related brain state, that the dosimeter measures exposure accurately, and that no unmeasured time-varying confound explains the dose-response correlation. The GMM staircase method is taken as a standard tool from prior work. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Peak pressure event threshold = 160 dB SPL (0.25 psi)
    Selected as the threshold that maximized dose-response correlation across a scan of seven thresholds (140-170 dB SPL), not pre-specified (Section 3.2).
  • GMM staircase percentile thresholds = {12.5, 25, 37.5, 50, 62.5, 75, 87.5}
    Partition points for training the ensemble; chosen by the authors (Section 2.8).
  • Number of Gaussian components per GMM = 5
    Set to 5 instead of the 10 used in prior work (Section 2.8).
  • Recursive smoothing alpha = 0.0001
    Smoothing constant for feature change scores (Eq. 3).
  • Gait eigenvalue rank for complexity feature = rank 10 at first delay scale
    Chosen post hoc as the rank with strongest correlation with blast exposure (Section 3.4).
  • Blink detection parameters = Haar scale 80, min peak width 200 ms, 95th percentile height, artifact power >2.5x median
    Selected to maximize true positives on a subset of hand-labeled data (Section 2.6).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption EOG and accelerometry features capture physiological states relevant to blast exposure.
    The entire method assumes that blink duration, gait complexity, and balance path length are informative about acute neurological response (Sections 2.5-2.7).
  • domain assumption The MNOISE dosimeter accurately measures individual blast exposure after artifact removal.
    Artifacts were removed via a two-microphone consistency classifier; sessions with >20 artifacts were discarded. Underlying accuracy of the device is taken as given (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Blast metrics correlate with physiology beyond general time-on-task effects.
    The paper argues blast exposure is a direct predictor because blast correlations exceed duration correlations, but this relies on no unmeasured confound (Section 3.2).
  • standard math The GMM staircase produces well-calibrated risk scores.
    The method is adopted from prior work [8]; its statistical consistency is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wearable Tracking of Eye and Body Movements During Breaching Training: Towards Real-Time Blast Injury Monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMXEUVMK

@misc{pith2026250509508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wearable Tracking of Eye and Body Movements During Breaching Training: Towards Real-Time Blast Injury Monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMXEUVMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09508}
}
read the original abstract

Repeated exposure to blast overpressure in occupational settings has been associated with changes in cognitive and psychological health, as well as deficits in neurosensory subsystems. In this work, we describe a wearable system to simultaneously monitor physiology and blast exposure levels and demonstrate how this system can identify individualized exposure levels corresponding to acute physiological response to blast exposure. Machine learning was used to develop a dose-response model that fused multiple physiological measures (electrooculuography, gait, and balance) into a single risk score by predicting the level of blast exposure on held-out subjects (Fused model, R = 0.60). We found that blast events with peak pressure levels as low as 0.25 psi could be related to physiological changes and hence may contribute to blast injury. We also identified an individual subject with deteriorating reaction time scores that consistently showed a rapid and anomalous change in physiology-based risk scores after exposure to low-level blast events. Our results suggest that the wearable approach to blast monitoring is viable in weapons training environments as a complement to more direct but sparsely administered brain health assessments, potentially viable in austere environments, and that fusing multiple physiological signals can improve sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A wearable physiology and exposure system for measuring blast exposure risk, and notional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-modal feature extraction, model training, and fused scores. Physiology time series are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Case study participant blink scores versus time and exposure across several training days (bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dose-response correlation versus minimum peak pressure threshold for four cumulative overpressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Repetitive low-level blast exposure and neurocognitive effects in army ranger mortarmen

    Woodall JL, Sak JA, Cowdrick KR, Bove Mu˜ noz Bm, McElrath JH, Trimpe GR, Mei Y, Myhre Rl, Rains JK, and Hutchinson Cr. Repetitive low-level blast exposure and neurocognitive effects in army ranger mortarmen. Military Medicine 2023; 188:e771–e779

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Repeated low-level blast exposure: a descriptive human subjects study

    Carr W, Stone JR, Walilko T, Young LA, Snook TL, Paggi ME, Tsao JW, Jankosky CJ, Parish RV, and Ahlers ST. Repeated low-level blast exposure: a descriptive human subjects study. Military medicine 2016; 181:28–39

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Characteristics and impact of US military blast-related mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review

    Phipps H, Mondello S, Wilson A, Dittmer T, Rohde NN, Schroeder PJ, Nichols J, McGirt C, Hoffman J, Tanksley K, et al. Characteristics and impact of US military blast-related mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Frontiers in neurology 2020; 11:559318

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Blast-Related Oculomotor Functional Deficits

    Carr W, LaValle C, Salib J, Misistia A, Chin P, Salinas I, Johnson B, King J, Garfield B, and Kamimori G. Blast-Related Oculomotor Functional Deficits. Journal Of Neurotrauma . Vol. 38. 14. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Fl, New Rochelle, Ny 10801 Usa. 2021 :A76–A77

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Effects of repetitive low-level blast exposure on visual system and ocular structures

    Cap´ o-Aponte JE, Jurek GM, Walsh DV, Temme LA, Ahroon WA, and Riggs DW. Effects of repetitive low-level blast exposure on visual system and ocular structures. J Rehabil Res Dev 2015; 52:273–90

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Changes in Eye Tracking Features Across Periods of Overpressure Exposure

    Rao HM, McGuire SM, Halford E, and Smalt CJ. Changes in Eye Tracking Features Across Periods of Overpressure Exposure. Military Medicine 2023; 188:e3398–e3406

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Vestibular consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and blast exposure: a review

    Akin FW, Murnane OD, Hall CD, and Riska KM. Vestibular consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and blast exposure: a review. Brain injury 2017; 31:1188–94

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Using body-worn accelerometers to detect physiological changes during periods of blast overpressure exposure

    Williamson JR, Kim J, Halford E, Smalt CJ, and Rao HM. Using body-worn accelerometers to detect physiological changes during periods of blast overpressure exposure. 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) . IEEE. 2022 :926–32

    work page 2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Acute hearing deficits associated with weapons exposure in section 734 Blast Overpressure Study (BOS)

    Kulinski D, Carr W, Garfield BA, Salib J, Dirks C, Sheffield B, and Brungart DS. Acute hearing deficits associated with weapons exposure in section 734 Blast Overpressure Study (BOS). Military medicine 2023; 188:666–73

    2023

  2. [10]

    Characterization of acute hearing changes in United States military populations

    Hecht QA, Hammill TL, Calamia PT, Smalt CJ, and Brungart DS. Characterization of acute hearing changes in United States military populations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2019; 146:3839–48

    2019

  3. [11]

    Prevalence of mental health conditions after military blast exposure, their co-occurrence, and their relation to mild traumatic brain injury

    Walker WC, Franke L, McDonald S, Sima AP, and Keyser-Marcus L. Prevalence of mental health conditions after military blast exposure, their co-occurrence, and their relation to mild traumatic brain injury. Brain injury 2015; 29:1581–8

    2015

  4. [12]

    Single and repeated high-level blast, low-level blast, and new-onset self-reported health conditions in the US Millennium Cohort Study: An exploratory investigation

    Belding JN, Kolaja CA, Rull RP, and Trone DW. Single and repeated high-level blast, low-level blast, and new-onset self-reported health conditions in the US Millennium Cohort Study: An exploratory investigation. Frontiers in Neurology 2023; 14:1110717

    2023

  5. [13]

    The role of very low level blast overpressure in symptomatology

    Sajja VSSS, LaValle C, Salib JE, Misistia AC, Ghebremedhin MY, Ramos AN, Egnoto MJ, Long JB, and Kamimori GH. The role of very low level blast overpressure in symptomatology. Frontiers in neurology 2019; 10:891

    2019

  6. [14]

    Department of Defense Requirements for Managing Brain Health Risks from Blast Over- pressure

    Hicks KH. Department of Defense Requirements for Managing Brain Health Risks from Blast Over- pressure. DoD Memoorandum. 2024 Aug. Available from: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Aug/ 09/2003521276/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-REQUIREMENTS-FOR-MANAGING-BRAIN-HEALTH- RISKS-FROM...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Tym- panic membrane perforation and hearing loss from blast overpressure in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom wounded

    Ritenour AE, Wickley A, Ritenour JS, Kriete BR, Blackbourne LH, Holcomb JB, and Wade CE. Tym- panic membrane perforation and hearing loss from blast overpressure in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom wounded. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2008; 6...

    2008

  8. [16]

    Blast-induced cochlear synaptopathy in chinchillas

    Hickman T, Smalt C, Bobrow J, Quatieri T, and Liberman M. Blast-induced cochlear synaptopathy in chinchillas. Scientific reports 2018; 8:10740

    2018

  9. [17]

    An End-User Evaluation of Blast Overpressure and Accelerative Impact Body-Worn Sensors

    Smith CD, Reddy MK, Sims ST, Conen KM, and Krauss SW. An End-User Evaluation of Blast Overpressure and Accelerative Impact Body-Worn Sensors. Military Medicine 2024; 189:276–83 14

    2024

  10. [18]

    Development of a blast exposure estimator from a Department of Defense-wide survey study on military service members

    Modica LCM, Egnoto MJ, Statz JK, Carr W, and Ahlers ST. Development of a blast exposure estimator from a Department of Defense-wide survey study on military service members. Journal of neurotrauma 2021; 38:1654–61

    2021

  11. [19]

    Occupational Noise Measurement Standard: ANSI S12-19

    Goodwin R. Occupational Noise Measurement Standard: ANSI S12-19. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1998; 103:2921–1

    1998

  12. [20]

    Noise dosimetry for tactical environ- ments

    Smalt CJ, Lacirignola J, Davis SK, Calamia PT, and Collins PP. Noise dosimetry for tactical environ- ments. Hearing research 2017; 349:42–54

    2017

  13. [21]

    In-ear and on-body measurements of impulse-noise exposure

    Davis SK, Calamia PT, Murphy WJ, and Smalt CJ. In-ear and on-body measurements of impulse-noise exposure. International journal of audiology 2019; 58:S49–S57

    2019

  14. [22]

    Effects of low-level blast exposure on the nervous system: is there really a controversy? Frontiers in neurology 2014; 5:269

    Elder GA, Stone JR, and Ahlers ST. Effects of low-level blast exposure on the nervous system: is there really a controversy? Frontiers in neurology 2014; 5:269

    2014

  15. [23]

    Review of wearable technologies and machine learning methodologies for systematic detection of mild traumatic brain injuries

    Schmid W, Fan Y, Chi T, Golanov E, Regnier-Golanov AS, Austerman RJ, Podell K, Cherukuri P, Bentley T, Steele CT, et al. Review of wearable technologies and machine learning methodologies for systematic detection of mild traumatic brain injuries. Journal of neural engineering ...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sports concussion and the risk of chronic neurological impairment

    McCrory P. Sports concussion and the risk of chronic neurological impairment. Clinical journal of sport medicine 2011; 21:6–12

    2011

  17. [25]

    Neurocog- nitive performance deficits related to immediate and acute blast overpressure exposure

    LaValle CR, Carr WS, Egnoto MJ, Misistia AC, Salib JE, Ramos AN, and Kamimori GH. Neurocog- nitive performance deficits related to immediate and acute blast overpressure exposure. Frontiers in neurology 2019; 10:949

    2019

  18. [26]

    Perspectives on repeated low-level blast and the measurement of neurotrauma in humans as an occupational exposure risk

    Carr W, Dell K, Yanagi M, Hassan D, and LoPresti M. Perspectives on repeated low-level blast and the measurement of neurotrauma in humans as an occupational exposure risk. Shock waves 2017; 27:829–36

    2017

  19. [27]

    Fatigue monitoring through wearables: A state-of-the-art review

    Ad˜ ao Martins NR, Annaheim S, Spengler CM, and Rossi RM. Fatigue monitoring through wearables: A state-of-the-art review. Frontiers in physiology 2021; 12:790292

    2021

  20. [28]

    Detecting Parkinson’s disease from wrist-worn accelerometry in the UK Biobank

    Williamson JR, Telfer B, Mullany R, and Friedl KE. Detecting Parkinson’s disease from wrist-worn accelerometry in the UK Biobank. Sensors 2021; 21:2047

    2021

  21. [29]

    Differentiating dementia disease subtypes with gait analysis: feasibility of wearable sensors? Gait & posture 2020; 76:372–6

    Mc Ardle R, Del Din S, Galna B, Thomas A, and Rochester L. Differentiating dementia disease subtypes with gait analysis: feasibility of wearable sensors? Gait & posture 2020; 76:372–6

    2020

  22. [30]

    Wearable sensing systems for monitoring mental health

    Kang M and Chai K. Wearable sensing systems for monitoring mental health. Sensors 2022; 22:994

    2022

  23. [31]

    Wiri S, Massow T, Reid J, Whitty J, Dunbar C, Graves W, Gonzales A, Ortley D, Longwell J, Needham CE, et al. Dynamic monitoring of service members to quantify blast exposure levels during combat training using BlackBox Biometrics Blast Gauges: explosive breaching, shoulder-fir...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Development and evaluation of a body-worn dosimeter for continuous and impulsive noise

    Smalt CJ, Yuan E, Rodriguez AR, Clavier O, Audette WE, Brzuska A, Russell J, Hecht Q, Schur- man JR, and Brungart DS. Development and evaluation of a body-worn dosimeter for continuous and impulsive noise. 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Me...

    2022

  25. [33]

    ANAM Test System: Administration Manual

    LifeSciences V. ANAM Test System: Administration Manual. 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    What is a blink? Classifying and characterizing blinks in eye openness signals

    Nystr¨ om M, Andersson R, Niehorster DC, Hessels RS, and Hooge IT. What is a blink? Classifying and characterizing blinks in eye openness signals. Behavior Research Methods 2024 :1–20

    2024

  27. [35]

    Muscle artifacts in the sleep EEG: Automated detection and effect on all-night EEG power spectra

    Brunner D, VASKO R, DETKA C, MONAHAN J, REYNOLDS III C, and KUPFER D. Muscle artifacts in the sleep EEG: Automated detection and effect on all-night EEG power spectra. Journal of sleep research 1996; 5:155–64

    1996

  28. [36]

    Denoising EOG signal using stationary wavelet transform

    Naga R, Chandralingam S, Anjaneyulu T, and Satyanarayana K. Denoising EOG signal using stationary wavelet transform. Measurement Science Review 2012; 12:46–51

    2012

  29. [37]

    On the real-time prevention and monitoring of exertional heat illness in military personnel

    Buller M, Delves S, Fogarty A, and Veenstra B. On the real-time prevention and monitoring of exertional heat illness in military personnel. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2021; 24:975–81 15

    2021

  30. [38]

    Cumulative blast impulse is predictive for changes in chronic neurobehavioral symptoms following low level blast exposure during military training

    McEvoy C, Crabtree A, Case J, Means GE, Muench P, Thomas RG, Ivory RA, Mihalik J, and Meabon JS. Cumulative blast impulse is predictive for changes in chronic neurobehavioral symptoms following low level blast exposure during military training. Military medicine 2024 :usae082 16

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.