<%BANNER%>

Head Acceleration and Associated Pain Felt in the Neck Region during a Simulated Automobile Low Velocity Rear-End Collis...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022116/00001

Material Information

Title: Head Acceleration and Associated Pain Felt in the Neck Region during a Simulated Automobile Low Velocity Rear-End Collision as a Function of Seat Back Angle
Physical Description: 1 online resource (61 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: acceleration, angle, automobile, collision, head, low, neck, pain, seat, velocity
Applied Physiology and Kinesiology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The angle of the seat back is an important factor in head acceleration and pain felt during a low velocity rear-end collision. Ten male volunteers with a mean age of 22.40 plus or minus 2.37 years, mean height of 1.79 plus or minus 0.035 m, and mean mass of 81.92 plus or minus 11.51 kg were exposed to impacts designed to replicate this type of collision in a lab setting. The change in velocity for each impact was approximately 8 kph (5 mph). The variable during the study was the angle of the seat back. Three seat back angles consisting of 100, 115, and 130 degrees from horizontal were tested. In general, as the angle of the seat back increased, the peak horizontal, vertical, and resultant accelerations decreased. More specifically, significant differences were detected for the horizontal accelerations with increased values for 100 degrees when compared to 115 and 130 degrees. There was no significance difference observed when comparing the vertical accelerations across the three seat angles. The resultant acceleration showed significant differences when comparing 130 degrees to 100 degrees and 115 degrees, with the lower acceleration occurring in the 130 degree seat position in both cases. Conversely, pain increased significantly as the angle increased. The 130 degree seat position had significantly higher pain ratings when compared to the 100 and 115 degree seat positions. Therefore, it can be inferred that there is an inverse relationship between seat back angle and acceleration while there is a direct relationship between seat back angle and pain. Based on further analysis of the data collected during this study, it may be possible that the increase in pain is due to the larger contribution of the muscles and the decreased contribution of the headrest to stop the head during the trials at 130 degrees. To minimize risk, it is recommended to maintain a 100 degree seat back angle when in the front row of an automobile.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Tillman, Mark D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022116:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022116/00001

Material Information

Title: Head Acceleration and Associated Pain Felt in the Neck Region during a Simulated Automobile Low Velocity Rear-End Collision as a Function of Seat Back Angle
Physical Description: 1 online resource (61 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: acceleration, angle, automobile, collision, head, low, neck, pain, seat, velocity
Applied Physiology and Kinesiology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The angle of the seat back is an important factor in head acceleration and pain felt during a low velocity rear-end collision. Ten male volunteers with a mean age of 22.40 plus or minus 2.37 years, mean height of 1.79 plus or minus 0.035 m, and mean mass of 81.92 plus or minus 11.51 kg were exposed to impacts designed to replicate this type of collision in a lab setting. The change in velocity for each impact was approximately 8 kph (5 mph). The variable during the study was the angle of the seat back. Three seat back angles consisting of 100, 115, and 130 degrees from horizontal were tested. In general, as the angle of the seat back increased, the peak horizontal, vertical, and resultant accelerations decreased. More specifically, significant differences were detected for the horizontal accelerations with increased values for 100 degrees when compared to 115 and 130 degrees. There was no significance difference observed when comparing the vertical accelerations across the three seat angles. The resultant acceleration showed significant differences when comparing 130 degrees to 100 degrees and 115 degrees, with the lower acceleration occurring in the 130 degree seat position in both cases. Conversely, pain increased significantly as the angle increased. The 130 degree seat position had significantly higher pain ratings when compared to the 100 and 115 degree seat positions. Therefore, it can be inferred that there is an inverse relationship between seat back angle and acceleration while there is a direct relationship between seat back angle and pain. Based on further analysis of the data collected during this study, it may be possible that the increase in pain is due to the larger contribution of the muscles and the decreased contribution of the headrest to stop the head during the trials at 130 degrees. To minimize risk, it is recommended to maintain a 100 degree seat back angle when in the front row of an automobile.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Tillman, Mark D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022116:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101109_AAAABL INGEST_TIME 2010-11-09T18:09:49Z PACKAGE UFE0022116_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 23085 DFID F20101109_AABCKQ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH hillier_m_Page_60.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3c4896d7f5344e82d6134e793df0d6a8
SHA-1
4c5795773f4a8ca9bbd38b5af1d70c81a67f163f
2083 F20101109_AABCFS hillier_m_Page_32.txt
ff3a3e698dddcfbd9c2e24db5d2bfc68
3d14a59b2b1fc75be47227b9ddae462b6931f32d
2056 F20101109_AABCPN hillier_m_Page_31.txt
3174cd032c85518df29a72838abfc9c9
051c3d525e855aea14ecf16274c8b25c3eae056f
77107 F20101109_AABCKR hillier_m_Page_61.jpg
73eee473a62ece0a9565e46b09284887
04e2c3ed757e754a80f0427addefc4ec19d4db8c
35591 F20101109_AABCFT hillier_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
d34aaebcfbff538e0af027f7ba677c6a
962fa8b49b35b2bd85ee6376fd07be50034c6a18
1485 F20101109_AABCPO hillier_m_Page_35.txt
ed4085459cec8e63622c3979c6805a59
7467861c58516d0c7107b4702ab5645a555de0ae
29064 F20101109_AABCKS hillier_m_Page_01.jp2
09931bb9c0836a22f2ece7d7dac5f21b
8fcd452311eee766dc8fa31884536ae7f562322d
1053954 F20101109_AABCFU hillier_m_Page_40.tif
ac99de489f856d52a7b2f1312e69be56
23a3e3b514f5bdce7989e67017f4cb56bb7ddded
387 F20101109_AABCPP hillier_m_Page_36.txt
ad5dd79d7d6f367010448795a3c30bce
9554f3786b96b00c467a44d95c707c8a0a28e352
5663 F20101109_AABCKT hillier_m_Page_02.jp2
f87d211a3bada54ac8c7c6f89dfb9c5b
43a326598474fda1e7be432650efb91b3c0cbb14
12779 F20101109_AABCFV hillier_m_Page_44.pro
951278219994b649c6c8a0bd10eed32d
50e3181458c15c720da873b75a5548663edd7e2d
2013 F20101109_AABCPQ hillier_m_Page_38.txt
3bee13c5d75c89d4c996934df8107ed0
65e58d05e9ba1d2594e2e9e98c757f9b76fcf7e9
F20101109_AABCFW hillier_m_Page_11.tif
6efcf6b2efe711002a319d3f02688a82
c6610a00645a736f59a7bf396f18352b9e4da1ef
2106 F20101109_AABCPR hillier_m_Page_39.txt
703a209e83a1c69e1b6b3489dbbb4634
4fa7de6dfc2f112222a1c6c76a263480ea09451a
10509 F20101109_AABCKU hillier_m_Page_03.jp2
0d76887d2f142a75281df7d9e1c2818c
6747f397cd6cba58de97f0ecebafb42e08dd5974
34822 F20101109_AABCFX hillier_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
412fb1f2ec2ec7d7eaba59e8c28fdc63
8ca81cb94cad93a5c67a479f1f321b775e2d0d14
625 F20101109_AABCPS hillier_m_Page_43.txt
3c61fb0bb850efd0b60878c7ee50734e
cc879794b957e6811346e13950e1727d2774d2f1
54930 F20101109_AABCKV hillier_m_Page_04.jp2
72e930f254c0f022b748808746aa7678
f3f3b4ca3e056de965184cef064c156fa69cf8e1
37954 F20101109_AABCDA hillier_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
6a6698c13680820f654ca7abae86dd62
4a147f8372c80e9f60646a4e94a1d9daf2d3b3cb
119652 F20101109_AABCFY hillier_m_Page_33.jp2
d8522aaa36bbba6c6b41c03f480f3e1a
be1edd17ec0bfae7efddcc3db06e88bac315f1b1
2213 F20101109_AABCPT hillier_m_Page_46.txt
49cdb7fc59b368943c02e2076b450152
284344cba70ea3cbd0eb4229d20037daa2bd07b6
106055 F20101109_AABCDB hillier_m_Page_16.jpg
dbef5660e413a46b348765a645b463ab
962fc01ed757ac324d0e337c86561e00616e79af
25271604 F20101109_AABCFZ hillier_m_Page_42.tif
980c63f871feffc0fc4f07d5e996fc61
4310a197bc34330a2c9c3821b8fec6faf99021e4
2285 F20101109_AABCPU hillier_m_Page_48.txt
247760b11613141201042f474762e35a
948456581d4094ec3c88c2f2acf75f39326c070c
1051981 F20101109_AABCKW hillier_m_Page_05.jp2
21772ca19c5f8310dcd4dae9d90cf432
1574a15b3daaab9a827016df20a81206e18d03fe
F20101109_AABCDC hillier_m_Page_56.tif
f067ad5a59f0844c420c8d6fb0607e39
9e11dd8d3d802b078e1be54a2d0944420bcf8370
2114 F20101109_AABCPV hillier_m_Page_50.txt
815d466585aff85824dc6d01fa1661fa
53271df57b0d08e7440c464bcbbd542095acd546
1051979 F20101109_AABCKX hillier_m_Page_06.jp2
59a2ff0c4ffb90b6735ffb575be1a66b
0265831106426aa43628155299bbbc8b3dbb8e23
F20101109_AABCDD hillier_m_Page_50.tif
138815005e6b6d0dfb78f392525dbfbb
03c3d788206d3b0287b4b36037af15a0c4a67a63
2004 F20101109_AABCPW hillier_m_Page_51.txt
ebc42ea8817d37fbc8e58da665b17ce1
89e11fdc672c89e089b2390655c4c91ab7ba6dc1
31590 F20101109_AABCIA hillier_m_Page_37.jpg
373883001593b62dcf7c20fb21059450
dcf834f6d2f9a655052946cf0a4952dc660bf747
1017360 F20101109_AABCKY hillier_m_Page_08.jp2
68089d7c45e231e213df7405b09e28b7
71d97d4c972ecaad0b58d227885854248965a6af
37211 F20101109_AABCDE hillier_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
4e85595e3c73823e1fa8b23bee6856b0
41b388d99e0511bd313c4a0a7c832b876c70951b
1102 F20101109_AABCPX hillier_m_Page_54.txt
7c45dd0df5ae038253b94b5c96b5529a
9accf16e48e89ac66ac49aa486e2ca553de1cce8
1378 F20101109_AABCIB hillier_m_Page_53.txt
0e1f6bc19739421e5782a24cfb11bfb0
df18f6ae4954b6f79554a65d3c931e510e70810f
32963 F20101109_AABCKZ hillier_m_Page_11.jp2
04cb73d776968d47bdd8ec58193cc7a1
7128f97237b8f97065c0101a62bf50dffed6119c
9036 F20101109_AABCDF hillier_m_Page_03.jpg
f4b6d2c289a6ab01b361514ae55e909f
d60baf804fd66c2e0c164bcfead66fd4d7c9226a
2631 F20101109_AABCPY hillier_m_Page_57.txt
5704fbe98e7a1b1f18752227b5398046
831c85cf7b42a0a0b7449421939f955386ada6d9
F20101109_AABCIC hillier_m_Page_31.tif
13d0c33a82421d5f4e16e2dad0d1bf7b
fdaed9d1b55b6f5c9ab75c1cad7df6e4420f1833
31774 F20101109_AABCDG hillier_m_Page_11.jpg
9b07168f51b937abfb89eea5f6b563ca
0cc7a4a1fcef4e5c050da8fa056f470295e447e9
F20101109_AABCNA hillier_m_Page_46.tif
c95cdcd28ca9de03449261f17ecc87e7
bf3e8e2b4733434a7ffd5a32728d17703fe36bbf
2426 F20101109_AABCPZ hillier_m_Page_58.txt
53e9d7f48a855511bec6764211b57424
33ee3c51066a598aad8a5d50166e2bd2645fb900
14116 F20101109_AABCID hillier_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
0198802d3e9408596b582a391562ad36
e7aea9d7606caad6e1b575f145d5f8d8ceac9ce7
F20101109_AABCNB hillier_m_Page_47.tif
c89b2e0b42f22fed387dfd645483a9f8
9bb093b53817d6a89f96d5a290ccab8f93fb8e8c
40634 F20101109_AABCIE hillier_m_Page_36.jpg
cabd2a058d4d5ae38b5ef87db52b3d2c
7631860e2b736c4d1fe191453a982ec4ee87c873
F20101109_AABCDH hillier_m_Page_34.tif
c68d054b5c04bc796fe6264ede522c9b
a7548262f0bd0823c4342d820e1602700deae527
F20101109_AABCNC hillier_m_Page_48.tif
342ff7bf50897a1488934ab88915db80
79f1fba1ebe5add6385ed7cf0455463c697f1c8f
38647 F20101109_AABCIF hillier_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
ae41f394309e36590e47acc86c6f6b3b
e3c43a98d37c2151e56dcf335c4dee950b50113d
38930 F20101109_AABCDI hillier_m_Page_30.jpg
afe6dfaeb023bec6d8e31ec8bf876976
21fd13ae0ab5c663807c57e426e420c12fc40aa5
3789 F20101109_AABCSA hillier_m_Page_44thm.jpg
3c89ca257f2f2ba05dd79e264f072e98
75f8e828183e8ab90d97f3e878b6dfa522d34d7e
F20101109_AABCND hillier_m_Page_49.tif
ed787d797110179794bda05d1bc865b3
91cdc10b0153b1bb7406db98d7979d6f51a30dcc
F20101109_AABCIG hillier_m_Page_33.tif
299a0a3d58a46e3c512b25865f93cfd3
817d0c30b31656dba4acdee48ab01f83147eabc7
2267 F20101109_AABCDJ hillier_m_Page_33.txt
f1ab09bef1a790ae4b540948d72a7b9d
b755d502c8b3de60b2f69df5f5a1a79ac4104b34
18477 F20101109_AABCSB hillier_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
8cd9be853e947482c5d5ab6f3ab0e4d1
737681ac0a78e8153598cdfbce1dcb0eb76b682f
F20101109_AABCNE hillier_m_Page_51.tif
8022fb1e0e3acdc35e8955a7d3163fe3
e968c2b11b35781cbef1f4a03e9f98d83efda75c
1016 F20101109_AABCIH hillier_m_Page_04.txt
0b845e3b82d10393c81b65c456902666
e5dfde1a87b3b5a9e4e7fd6e3cbd33972569ad76
97988 F20101109_AABCDK hillier_m_Page_38.jp2
74a20a1a2d3ddaf856806b598e7dc02d
c4e34f9fdc3bddfb332f14f535eece506f17dc3a
8610 F20101109_AABCSC hillier_m_Page_46thm.jpg
fe0419b6bde5bd66eeb126ddad61a6f6
bfc06e05bd316fee8f312114d1aa0c1ec0edc60a
F20101109_AABCNF hillier_m_Page_53.tif
4de4a7a1e9fdf3cd114aac62c49813e1
fccf7766db485f7f2c16a511466f1b63daeb2ff8
4331 F20101109_AABCII hillier_m_Page_04thm.jpg
28c27d288f0e201b8cc00c82c26f47a5
24ae101525a7399972c03f89580a00a7ef3a2db9
6025 F20101109_AABCDL hillier_m_Page_45thm.jpg
8d653a3c7b0998e364f00b0c3703ca22
c20b89100f2a4578371e0269d1319c5e01173450
38069 F20101109_AABCSD hillier_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
e27f18c25b4746e2faf34790cf4ea519
cfd97e2db5448b3433365bc9591fb6bbccbe1428
F20101109_AABCNG hillier_m_Page_54.tif
06a374273d353f0e7d669d9ab8189791
fde3a5061bd51e446a83080a5bde5f76e3b08548
111612 F20101109_AABCIJ hillier_m_Page_12.jpg
be9f8731d2ca2fa01aa039f9707ff268
b56c7b43b7df40892190145bc412d9f580899384
30042 F20101109_AABCDM hillier_m_Page_09.jp2
13b26adc16d58d04b9926be7be26593b
aa6c5b77a129194c793d012a9199a8b16126758d
35718 F20101109_AABCSE hillier_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
bab21b39008a9c95cf105342d06f320a
d2e3d1edcd813796309f56f7df990d208c140385
F20101109_AABCNH hillier_m_Page_55.tif
f1ff74807b1fc97bd8e2b856d5501236
d905e204a399fd58af206021654339bae4df8c96
F20101109_AABCIK hillier_m_Page_45.tif
c1acea4f864ef92402c3c57c980e5f8b
cc4462324b073d0e766032d9cedd3b669707cd99
2187 F20101109_AABCDN hillier_m_Page_25.txt
12a7542d9658491af6c4cb799413172a
4d935f9230c70d52008df46807052e555644b0a8
9178 F20101109_AABCSF hillier_m_Page_49thm.jpg
eb25f9ecb9b816e1d363d6a201da5f7e
43c9da948dd0b53613d1d332ce5a9cbef5f9d956
F20101109_AABCNI hillier_m_Page_59.tif
602246e5f198912cd98ee9133a07c251
e98b055f6c4af34b758bfd86741bae1d456c1f8d
F20101109_AABCIL hillier_m_Page_03.tif
ea40eb9e4b71673c46b77205dad4dbe4
96d20cf6a97b5305ce1d46b8628b436203011d43
F20101109_AABCDO hillier_m_Page_16.txt
3780f3bc1ee9fb387a24a6c58f397d7d
51fb155dbd79b3ebba1da5f0dcbddb283cdd3824
31310 F20101109_AABCSG hillier_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
a3f820386e021f7f7563d80970374989
b159faf8776773eb00c0cf4ca04f999b4e5e7f71
F20101109_AABCNJ hillier_m_Page_60.tif
d125568faf9caab58951e4fe8db790c3
23624f2dc3d96890b3159a24eb98f276d03896ee
F20101109_AABCIM hillier_m_Page_18.tif
8288ccf5243de4417f76f3d5b4d92ac1
9ee4c2eb8eb594d7826124bf471a4ed514449e98
8456 F20101109_AABCSH hillier_m_Page_51thm.jpg
514f0d79419d0a55802b5cd40da32094
432f7dd2d0a2ea9cf2c82a16deeecf7e5ae55606
10189 F20101109_AABCNK hillier_m_Page_01.pro
6ee47b265c7d79e862b4d91489425b70
bd5bd0cfa6a0b442428260d2a06867a5a2422557
F20101109_AABCIN hillier_m_Page_58.tif
3a9ce8d14ca7f6b912bc69f7d5b1104b
e09434123678c83b80b401f70de8c1d525f82d7e
53280 F20101109_AABCDP hillier_m_Page_16.pro
dce67b5c903fbfc09d637a6ef93ec094
6a550cd20422bae9c40af79d3d7ea916c6cc07a0
5642 F20101109_AABCSI hillier_m_Page_53thm.jpg
f564aff914b3d5ca25e8159ac0715340
1aa6546e2179c10caf2a02af1fba33d00ad3f8de
1042 F20101109_AABCNL hillier_m_Page_02.pro
25e033229abf02bb9096c4c3424bb02e
59e8ebc5efc1b6b2819ab0b87ba013c2b4c8d51f
2617 F20101109_AABCIO hillier_m_Page_56.txt
3adde387510f5e6057f6cf6e9ac97151
f075819e65c3103d0383ebc98e5e2674d1548061
4239 F20101109_AABCDQ hillier_m_Page_02.jpg
9c487dd456ec15e27e39328f4ffb530d
62cd0140ddf44653057ea60ef336fce3f48ae004
17195 F20101109_AABCSJ hillier_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
3b61fe0f54beff35e2a6b389c854913e
ac51ebcb816f36042af086a4e96aeeceefd4ed26
3317 F20101109_AABCNM hillier_m_Page_03.pro
2b40226f8375b34e858747852704c0c4
4cc902db5df593c475015e9e6ff45c72debb2e75
79874 F20101109_AABCIP hillier_m_Page_61.jp2
25e9acb085adae9d21486613591d5535
5d084bf59c3083285165f710cb7decee123e253b
1459 F20101109_AABCDR hillier_m_Page_29.txt
514a84c61dbc8cd8d52793fb78bdefd1
f47d4fad4869b2a180e080dc9662eaa061b29e16
4012 F20101109_AABCSK hillier_m_Page_55thm.jpg
1e0e10168c159c9a69445160aa2e7ceb
d515fff6266f4093511f38d2514be34a40c5b4ef
24669 F20101109_AABCNN hillier_m_Page_04.pro
b320a988520e395ed5f4c9198f70218f
1e8e4fcba71ccf0b878b831411038384b4f45a6d
93966 F20101109_AABCIQ hillier_m_Page_05.pro
ea5cea42eef9b3e8477d4f557f61ca4b
a02af9eb0705ea18502cef12f867cc4003564485
37222 F20101109_AABCDS hillier_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
1d6727da7dc9852ed410b94458bbf603
9ca7d3baf3daaad87a06565a556fabe89ba477c4
9415 F20101109_AABCSL hillier_m_Page_56thm.jpg
a25e46a9c2c96183d21fd01bbfd618f7
f1766202ed36ee01f759adf8099fc21ed593ed54
65677 F20101109_AABCNO hillier_m_Page_06.pro
a2b13b70df078f625554491d55d716fb
11953a447fbbab9937a618cc44166daf9299c825
2033 F20101109_AABCIR hillier_m_Page_40.txt
6045e5f399e14c76e483dd720745d95d
00aa9dd2eb774979147238153bb9cd5e67efe9b4
64845 F20101109_AABCDT hillier_m_Page_59.pro
587eaffaeccac81c86be27dd057a361f
ddf05ceae258cc9e790ac66a3826d5fe002b4695
9377 F20101109_AABCSM hillier_m_Page_57thm.jpg
5f7132ced70411c73a56cf10fe1a62bd
1902e1ad0c45c38d61155e7d61db411cef9762a2
8367 F20101109_AABCNP hillier_m_Page_07.pro
5da5c17025da153cd812845d0e05a08a
b0df7fb2f210a3d1b33b5f3df215b56503ae322f
115197 F20101109_AABCIS hillier_m_Page_33.jpg
3ac08eb29762a32887ff9b7aa57d652e
2277e2b9e643aaf54abcdcf227a7b159a2250103
11837 F20101109_AABCDU hillier_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
1084d23a0499e3ece578b0271ba2e99d
33422960dd0a3b03ce5b6d2ecaa5a9efa0496e0d
9285 F20101109_AABCSN hillier_m_Page_58thm.jpg
630641c59f54c95b527a24e747821260
845719b80630bb1140196632881dd174f31e1d60
115492 F20101109_AABCIT hillier_m_Page_21.jpg
9c2ae199fa57951940ab06d254a2e9e9
030c300702b28692e07f779a621f32c9e32835be
F20101109_AABCDV hillier_m_Page_32thm.jpg
f0f1aff7613bc8792f84cd0e55235a18
b5c5ca1bed6da3e73e93852cf1127e49c25af9e7
13254 F20101109_AABCNQ hillier_m_Page_09.pro
a625153cd2fce3176eb842415d93ccc8
8a5fff8e254ec89c8a0ad4e0b5282818bd5aa2b9
36779 F20101109_AABCSO hillier_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
63f8c98281ae94495e052ba298d3ebf4
82e4f5142a61729a5b1987cc50b3be562b18401d
568 F20101109_AABCDW hillier_m_Page_01.txt
386f7df516871bd900796d9ade1ad51e
4b90e5333177117d65b2147b21008475905e3700
46154 F20101109_AABCNR hillier_m_Page_10.pro
693966602a2b46cbe9b44d859e9b778f
0f220da0105c44059ee0f05c7371e425fa626dd0
6969 F20101109_AABCSP hillier_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
f43b8e0e35ccb3fbef3e50585a8abc05
011d0cdb7f672d7489021615d33f6ba7c41873fe
9001 F20101109_AABCIU hillier_m_Page_33thm.jpg
04c64c8d06a0bddb9858622886c2c446
a4ac9cb08a57b1165d3c6eac7351da994fb8fcc1
3084 F20101109_AABCDX hillier_m_Page_09thm.jpg
dd5e9117b29742b7a3ed24b41bb75c4a
05b97826a26f962268eababdffc1c1f3b9ca739f
14451 F20101109_AABCNS hillier_m_Page_11.pro
dd6f16d90fd05ebbb068d64bc77b22b8
28936929dbe1c98a43cb9de813e5a1d2ac2c7c8c
1873 F20101109_AABCSQ hillier_m_Page_60thm.jpg
8b232a4e34a306f573d04e334d7c2f10
8803ece463db8964df921aadf99b2dac1e97cc9a
693 F20101109_AABCIV hillier_m_Page_44.txt
20e0ca2728050be7acbd13665630a35b
86bfa2ad8f9e59a0c902265fa78bb77ab88b224b
713 F20101109_AABCDY hillier_m_Page_42.txt
fbb4ff86ee3fc864dcd1c84c54ba62c8
ee7c03ecabbc5c0feae7d1b4c4b21f7f3decd1a7
50912 F20101109_AABCNT hillier_m_Page_14.pro
643f6ffc178a5ef2bec73a4ac7d7d7a6
38345b07444431c36c486428f5289009e9d0c21e
73208 F20101109_AABCSR UFE0022116_00001.mets FULL
46cf3da04abe0b01fb561225f879d596
6b514fd8516f7c25cf22a3af46f356f464f3e673
52601 F20101109_AABCIW hillier_m_Page_34.pro
723286086352ce19266272f6ee3bbb2f
86b6ca3aa8d0f7650595c095889f131221bb4361
114255 F20101109_AABCDZ hillier_m_Page_17.jpg
bae92eca86b8d7c9cd1406607d3e2336
20829dea91a7de8ce9825c39ecbccfd54f1be369
58108 F20101109_AABCNU hillier_m_Page_18.pro
309ec109aba7319ff2ae8a56f7999de4
cb71b09a8be2f54175d74417df9c9e7941001bf6
8805 F20101109_AABCIX hillier_m_Page_37.pro
211eb3760358de81d099f3b518bc6157
39c0d3932c601b2397defb359e0f162e4364b16e
57608 F20101109_AABCNV hillier_m_Page_19.pro
85beffbfe3db20efb289fb3f98f7f78e
ba6b0e7fa728ff89c4d7f6a93d96edd498844f58
9023 F20101109_AABCGA hillier_m_Page_47thm.jpg
4fefab469aa322b4548718f37575b83d
f499295f8473d4e8d70a4289fe38cf2b8563d8dd
4942 F20101109_AABCIY hillier_m_Page_41thm.jpg
1c63f2b08acbde48e0b55987b6087c05
add37336c567f042c5ac4cf245d7dadad5fa48f6
57277 F20101109_AABCNW hillier_m_Page_20.pro
f2fd12c9b2151f7b8b0aae0215089f0d
96d2b6a74c5112126bfdd0d8252bef8af415a38c
288613 F20101109_AABCGB hillier_m_Page_44.jp2
04d9f5130501331c22946a9fcd38902d
31962e58d46729174d11940064769e673f05dff9
4158 F20101109_AABCIZ hillier_m_Page_08thm.jpg
c546e212c2f8a9033be0119f6aeda48b
6face1d3ce795b4fc0f3dec30f3532de608ff6e6
55808 F20101109_AABCNX hillier_m_Page_22.pro
df8be661ca692f21a2bbf8e7430339a6
e3a73cf061ec9796c4a4d0d15d31789b0a4408e3
53849 F20101109_AABCGC hillier_m_Page_50.pro
e685030ef9a5a2e65cb2867407ba0f06
49b322a1a675d06e5d73c93d241abd2ed67f9fe8
58248 F20101109_AABCNY hillier_m_Page_23.pro
4299cbe3bb542dbd23de0229492c10c9
5a5c63f2237a0e500fbbec1e43af8a1ff77940c0
1051947 F20101109_AABCLA hillier_m_Page_12.jp2
e33e37f74e1e46854389b3bd8d7c6902
e2da717ad163d7818db7cafe539692a4c0111c12
313153 F20101109_AABCGD hillier_m_Page_36.jp2
e5324f62280d952f00fa1af722797c1a
1037723a5f183a01c52f2c580ff3f16e040009db
14168 F20101109_AABCLB hillier_m_Page_13.jp2
b2110fc19b51cf53a9101890712c1dc8
4087d97194d2f92bcf4b33dabec13b0f18e3496c
58079 F20101109_AABCNZ hillier_m_Page_24.pro
064b2f1c19c2dd19ba0ccc4187ce53b8
8f01a42e089d95160df84f7e62fb2e0d1847f9b2
45053 F20101109_AABCGE hillier_m_Page_38.pro
7ff8f66049d16719a84982bb9a5e22d9
7af5797f9aa10ff65087cc5926fe4ef5a3ae6b3d
121261 F20101109_AABCLC hillier_m_Page_17.jp2
bf3657327b744d715b7427cf293343f9
37dc4d0f63a91efb24266fdf272ac46b762f78c7
105628 F20101109_AABCGF hillier_m_Page_51.jp2
cc364e5e2849f6fd6330f9bba7d4a31d
b81cf1e24faf979d232bd698ef4722e3f8bcc1b3
F20101109_AABCQA hillier_m_Page_60.txt
10de399e6ce8c6b21c99d85e94dc04c1
ccf20dc28ab9b7f3b4fa67c74df97cc18c36933d
121623 F20101109_AABCLD hillier_m_Page_18.jp2
d6b68e64f9572175fa7cd05dd6f9a90a
d02ee3d53c3a3127df547aa512fcbf86b740a4ee
8995 F20101109_AABCGG hillier_m_Page_17thm.jpg
7482138403e93e81f7a4b3d54e538eb2
18db90411f007201bb1a5cfd1c947b29e095e06b
1479 F20101109_AABCQB hillier_m_Page_61.txt
e918a23035d63b7ae2b0d374473913db
9c6a88bc109e9de3a4de6916d2357b413c291569
120782 F20101109_AABCLE hillier_m_Page_20.jp2
72c2a50fb8605a14bad9da3290c0311d
29a4eb3497b35a9ffd5d2b633432a1b2b7418f6c
3825 F20101109_AABCGH hillier_m_Page_37thm.jpg
0651540a95439101068df5b465d76ab0
0564494b613428ae2bbd76604f70ab96516e2ea3
2498 F20101109_AABCQC hillier_m_Page_01thm.jpg
4f2372cb2352342c63ecbf9f6c784d5a
a548aa613a2e561e81fd70232b784363a6cb929a
121204 F20101109_AABCLF hillier_m_Page_24.jp2
9fe5097d86b9acb35baf3a1fac3d0962
8e00e5996d7a9816815bcf9e64b9ff3d0181f1a1
9665 F20101109_AABCGI hillier_m_Page_60.pro
6d3f88323b6155984166497a5c393041
ec39800ebe8d1d1e3c07064a5d47772f075f0146
519 F20101109_AABCQD hillier_m_Page_02thm.jpg
17db1f20a5033725429b80b54f4e8c5f
4dfaf09badc01aec3e9f346709b15cc2236b9101
114420 F20101109_AABCLG hillier_m_Page_25.jp2
9e763cbde4b0b18c2f046a957f75e81c
c86a588d8ab3aa9f39a9f4750aaac542a7b33a69
4931 F20101109_AABCGJ hillier_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
4320ada36e6075d10bf70c85f2a029f9
b9a46489f687276283cf928ff0eb196c482b8790
2717 F20101109_AABCQE hillier_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
78f69d7f5b8f558d9511b539e4de44c9
5b6c57f9f5a17158599c175ae6f21b50a4eb8c69
116583 F20101109_AABCLH hillier_m_Page_27.jp2
d3faa7a2e5012d41ff81bfc3cfb5532a
3797b44331b433c0749af78b983b951b773de0eb
37012 F20101109_AABCGK hillier_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
2274b0f3e87599e9b1477f5fb997cc65
f4178bacadc60a5c162e641b9af1727b77e2f609
17793 F20101109_AABCQF hillier_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
440147989e14f4263f66323a3f0e791b
6474b2d931a56f5ff211eece317e37e10ae2ba57
119137 F20101109_AABCLI hillier_m_Page_28.jp2
ebe49ac8aa5438476d3ad0be464c4823
e1071f80df061431f6ea97fff8d45b2ec3cb9515
56167 F20101109_AABCGL hillier_m_Page_12.pro
280acdbd52c0fae51be164f3431ef569
408071d4621d7a0eb71b15bab332222cae2412e0
26057 F20101109_AABCQG hillier_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
bdbddfd3932c75fd8742ff9355ebee3d
8ac6b0342355a579992315fcdd70ae12a3acc8f1
81025 F20101109_AABCLJ hillier_m_Page_29.jp2
a8ec8b272b3fcbc572b4cf05509473ce
ff0847ab7ed5ab9839d32853d78f9acd8cffac4a
55934 F20101109_AABCGM hillier_m_Page_28.pro
3ba662ec9ed5870034d3682c7b51fccd
ccb35eccad39d1a4a9aa97571d013d75727f0e13
6690 F20101109_AABCQH hillier_m_Page_05thm.jpg
9667675f69b114723fe1bbd1841c9e36
a6ee7bf555c87a7f4a91a39dc50d2823c2bc3c0c
370332 F20101109_AABCLK hillier_m_Page_30.jp2
af1fb000239898389fa695d7e30e0523
3d005a382c08018482b3e06287e964dab3bd91d7
4160 F20101109_AABCGN hillier_m_Page_30thm.jpg
9c619619717e8faafc3029b883a1dac8
196dca026527c880b84813c17aa8b01c8c66d899
17319 F20101109_AABCQI hillier_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
4c055466123c4018943a7d2033c233e5
1d1824313d94abc1e6a5f0a855d61afe8ac0863f
102540 F20101109_AABCLL hillier_m_Page_31.jp2
d0cc59eb6a8c5758418910495ed35634
1dd16da0b4d596f7023a76e2ed5537e1c2e20fa7
8887 F20101109_AABCGO hillier_m_Page_15thm.jpg
2fe0405eace641ced7d151e9864f41fe
01dd926685f428e8918d47458eb0493582dccd9d
4443 F20101109_AABCQJ hillier_m_Page_06thm.jpg
55e757bd6635af520b69d001d4c6dc5c
4c5a577af562e8e603b31918665e84ef7ed2b1ce
1051949 F20101109_AABCLM hillier_m_Page_34.jp2
391d62b78362b5c87eaf6dfd79888ac1
f669b98649b0cfeac5ac93a600b44fa65ec74053
2164 F20101109_AABCGP hillier_m_Page_49.txt
860db6bce7eab00577bd240af7fcdec6
54b9aaada252a11f2a7b9cf349b6cc340832b70b
4390 F20101109_AABCQK hillier_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
b02be3b58035e4ecd04ee3d5e08080c3
bbd9224448aca3ca183e26658cf03deb371074cb
81590 F20101109_AABCLN hillier_m_Page_35.jp2
3be3b17de55bcc4b5442be9828af3c71
1a3cd9e193a30bc659a409766a2cb2ec7233f0bd
450228 F20101109_AABCGQ hillier_m_Page_42.jp2
1c3e1a580685d94eb931948b7e6fcf4c
72c2163a6c4b8f0a0f0c17808b68f281947a6bd3
15367 F20101109_AABCQL hillier_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
d8190757db18d112f41ff3cffa200287
9ef9fa6eb0347c545fd850145543a216352ab7fc
111615 F20101109_AABCLO hillier_m_Page_39.jp2
3957aaa36dd64dbf0633da01c87a2388
9bc6b3d2fbed07e8edc7697a60c0d7cc747ecc41
103887 F20101109_AABCGR hillier_m_Page_40.jpg
1617baeb3f30ebce0e1da09f08b749ee
9f1b9e8a88bc67f2617a0d8bc9cf675dea4b3ba7
63569 F20101109_AABCLP hillier_m_Page_41.jp2
93e70757d26c4de0ed38dd39fba7a0fa
f91dfe556564e7b0aadeaae6dd055efe64a21e96
9878 F20101109_AABCQM hillier_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
7815786bddd2985451813ccab411c207
57960071ab1597d58ed02ae402f274fd02d77716
472516 F20101109_AABCLQ hillier_m_Page_45.jp2
8eefbdd41dcdfd5040a51971f1bc6a93
5a7c7dc3f98412bc9d62aa11996e17480185c592
119477 F20101109_AABCGS hillier_m_Page_19.jp2
3070c1ad9e2ae59a75e10f9ed44c1447
8087143510f6141ba1ab64690b0da5bd02c42b05
7474 F20101109_AABCQN hillier_m_Page_10thm.jpg
809ac259d9072b4d18cbb71a28a3491a
5cabf00965b84726d2565a8275e077485ac2aad9
120860 F20101109_AABCLR hillier_m_Page_48.jp2
f419ebf90fcddb64894011bc74a58bfa
69d8c81a8113143218e733feb4d0deb4d7c9e841
1568 F20101109_AABCGT hillier_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
6216bdb253d599f3459b30e88fd2fe17
53a3529baf85b12bed932e922b39e6dc7e0402e6
2613 F20101109_AABCQO hillier_m_Page_11thm.jpg
cfd64ac517f2160aa6b7c6a28db56a53
cb8eae798c8b474db50df06592fffdcde374462e
114556 F20101109_AABCLS hillier_m_Page_49.jp2
b4ed98d9bd155754768be21dd7f9067d
710a0f08f31c349866927170ca55556cb243c333
9341 F20101109_AABCGU hillier_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
3b0a4e56a22031495db1236b122a12b9
ba73661563847dc548ea089233d11b6491da52d1
35920 F20101109_AABCQP hillier_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
e91721b65a05925cb99fcdee9908e1ab
44bd372a84bff0ae4eb92d677df5f7ffa6fef82f
114127 F20101109_AABCLT hillier_m_Page_50.jp2
c578e9d078b7031caf681bcaca49643a
30f00a2b11a13f4bc828c62eca3d7fe789ebda08
113257 F20101109_AABCGV hillier_m_Page_47.jp2
7f872ecf26270f081259eccee0a63255
07e31e4428868e8d93cfc5671fe69ff2cb0931e9
34611 F20101109_AABCQQ hillier_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
5a1a1a91efce6e4bc664f35a34e77b1c
893690f1b127d2a16cbaf039c9f930642aedcfcb
117294 F20101109_AABCLU hillier_m_Page_52.jp2
8129670cf43f313c15a011c35b65c881
c8afd9529d591503dfff1c1dafd26e6e401db226
31680 F20101109_AABCGW hillier_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
ab0843d0bb46da45814bfc5ac3b17b23
e7ae54a8f71dfb025ae17c45baa341ca6da5e065
34074 F20101109_AABCQR hillier_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
d7568177b4232ee1e167e0ac10d4815d
95cde6cb95a0f79d8c0191296a8836e78565beda
72846 F20101109_AABCLV hillier_m_Page_53.jp2
ef1df5141606bed01e719ef34d5344e8
878fb0f6975dff095e240b3bb075c363c0f8ea1d
10800 F20101109_AABCGX hillier_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
2072c96eaece975f992296eadc30b2d8
a9a03a8fcab101c3c736edf3eec962ae1adc6697
8637 F20101109_AABCQS hillier_m_Page_16thm.jpg
b5b63285737e10234570783cb7207015
5fafcfe04c069c31559efe11e0544cb942f169f4
57214 F20101109_AABCLW hillier_m_Page_54.jp2
cc5d63705b4010fc4f188e813ea278be
4b8786bcbc77df82b502fa75759950d378dedb1e
53494 F20101109_AABCEA hillier_m_Page_46.pro
63e52a0bbbb48dce98f2927e22bd6c4f
3e52a753a877e587ba5f45cab32f993a2bdc4e66
35212 F20101109_AABCGY hillier_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
f986d64913ce0025a0b4c50018a5b551
dd187fd9216963988189d1f21196ddaa2f5a4987
38582 F20101109_AABCQT hillier_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
b11216bd91fc21bf015c7ce3067b03fd
b1a0b670c649c6ce94cb40728fee1b563720b505
113737 F20101109_AABCEB hillier_m_Page_28.jpg
7b207827d0ffa7b70fac34d89faf7ef9
167a7c7b9d44599350200e2c7cbf12a826533c31
29248 F20101109_AABCGZ hillier_m_Page_41.pro
396a1f8cdfa833a5e4c8a41268bfe4e9
36531682078123d55690d4bf03bb333cc284185e
9280 F20101109_AABCQU hillier_m_Page_18thm.jpg
6c17533584f52d7565fc35bbe17808c8
a43aa95269ec847ce8d377b5442637c6221490f5
140426 F20101109_AABCLX hillier_m_Page_56.jp2
1bdcc3e79e612f012b40bf69211f2480
2ba8c4c48dd2e42c6679be482ebb10145a8ac404
114336 F20101109_AABCEC hillier_m_Page_19.jpg
b6d5add8470dfb168eaba924a7fd2d9d
e862fb5a61a5d618603c698a1f2cb813e122da52
37481 F20101109_AABCQV hillier_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
699cb51e00604a10716a7edaef6a4fe7
57fe96b69d45542d0cbf5779873d8e1660377a5f
F20101109_AABCLY hillier_m_Page_01.tif
86d27d1a00a1cfb1714892920ad538cc
e22fafa24a923e9cf98a25788f0addc530bf4fe9
9086 F20101109_AABCED hillier_m_Page_52thm.jpg
cb0cbda6b7c511a3cce271b4af3a5eb0
9bae8f2913b47d509ac25f86d5c3fc72b87bb87d
9187 F20101109_AABCQW hillier_m_Page_19thm.jpg
f7a1361683c082b64846da5f6681e1cb
2810eec90d8d3ed425d819d0cb13be6a867ffb8e
1040 F20101109_AABCJA hillier_m_Page_03thm.jpg
90f6f0f88977ee025cbad08b4e78ee15
38df2248651fd4b748499476ca2031ce163db8cf
F20101109_AABCLZ hillier_m_Page_02.tif
8bff99446430fb4534c10f4795bd60b0
2243a87f95f707cd6fc0809228250b5796cd31b9
2567 F20101109_AABCEE hillier_m_Page_59.txt
ac25927b632ad8ba4ae127d2ff0ac77f
eccfe229b8a01a6978b3aa0bca28f1f8826e3160
37980 F20101109_AABCQX hillier_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
6d8160a0a9bea04ffad4dda747bb7135
a3644edc50968c8c7058c8fc03431c4c2a65086a
136424 F20101109_AABCJB hillier_m_Page_59.jp2
b55a35531adbb284491ba993cd483537
d83f363692a5a0962c389970e709650e59d50838
110209 F20101109_AABCEF hillier_m_Page_26.jpg
a92a588c22e1e73ca3d9e16ddbd85488
fd95c92f7c787f18c333ceacde3041021cf2970f
8928 F20101109_AABCQY hillier_m_Page_21thm.jpg
353adbc119726d9f9496609f1ba3b718
b53cdd9536799132fd7f37320b5a7a17723dacca
53302 F20101109_AABCJC hillier_m_Page_47.pro
2e6f8b0e0583c9467bab6bd333df1b6e
2b15a53a5c377d203113ed22952be36d2bfe196e
110771 F20101109_AABCEG hillier_m_Page_16.jp2
68130428b4442a86816d4cc3aa8c1a5b
c824a7d3b7c1e4befcd644385ab82049d9f3adf1
54988 F20101109_AABCOA hillier_m_Page_25.pro
a2a9391f3a54779c40d264dcd1d33cc5
ca864b1e82e27657cedefde06853cb936ee3d46d
37286 F20101109_AABCQZ hillier_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
cb2c4512fdd2e5a6211e36965bcbc8c4
151f2a1b7d016bb99d992f8dc3f36e593cf21f3a
4173 F20101109_AABCJD hillier_m_Page_54thm.jpg
056a715661a4b6b77c2f1bf9e0d54385
280507c2a88484c16a200d44a534e53513f0a217
2026 F20101109_AABCEH hillier_m_Page_10.txt
f47355acd9c6b36c7aa13e72f71d5c9c
5a00296a91bb07811200a2ff60dbf1894d86bf58
8241 F20101109_AABCOB hillier_m_Page_30.pro
d974012c9dcdeb1229d9ce4e7726fd0a
795880b4ba2f188031e76bb004f6fd874cd2296c
2235 F20101109_AABCJE hillier_m_Page_52.txt
0cfe54f5258e318cc6683e7f99cb3e6a
c63b8ef3853ebb79bb2ccbfad4fc07c404154419
1385 F20101109_AABCEI hillier_m_Page_07thm.jpg
b810336211d0562f7e9a7c2e9efb5e3a
80043c2b2807b26bec881fb04a36311a38ad9a32
48436 F20101109_AABCOC hillier_m_Page_31.pro
8ee5327af9508d844d46e1872913808c
921c09f1cf52a4f0cc2ca2f5e6e978bddb7c5212
56906 F20101109_AABCJF hillier_m_Page_33.pro
799cd2a1fd513758dfa3645497ab3eae
fc403a4eed6bd862ae5e12590e277e5c1acca479
8643 F20101109_AABCEJ hillier_m_Page_25thm.jpg
5eaee0a1c2636c78941e458bdf23b16e
c15e0d022999bb8cf8c334fb24be1aade40080b5
51955 F20101109_AABCOD hillier_m_Page_32.pro
0e69da5474ffd4ffb930fcca10c65c6c
94432f45bfc0d5c425ab0eaa5de594450b836c41
8870 F20101109_AABCJG hillier_m_Page_27thm.jpg
695c65777ff94617e122ce2b8a5e4f61
11ff769e80a70594ceb8ea974b3ffb512de8e30c
5650 F20101109_AABCEK hillier_m_Page_42thm.jpg
51231b6c790458cc839ed079e3a715b7
3ccdd76b8da788e6a83a322761f3f6d20dc6b5cb
35909 F20101109_AABCOE hillier_m_Page_35.pro
e4efbaa6aed9af1f6003c2caf09e1587
fabe9c1cff6bcc333996bf755ef573f559933a17
13322 F20101109_AABCJH hillier_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
040b6529a89266cf4d4d65ad9360ba98
9ebea1e572d29a5752efd3583f0848103420d77b
F20101109_AABCEL hillier_m_Page_61.tif
9a9992811cd7113bfb0446a3be3086f8
9da48ccd6e2bccfd8a38df85a9485848f5c0a18d
8634 F20101109_AABCOF hillier_m_Page_36.pro
ede0416f9f6dd89fff6f599bddb50165
37c98bc526a419f74cf11b4d2c16aa2caebfc5f9
2281 F20101109_AABCJI hillier_m_Page_12.txt
2eda8b92173097617299243bf6ccf7c4
0c423f0bc41addec049efe80ba482778e2fdbc80
8085 F20101109_AABCEM hillier_m_Page_40thm.jpg
8b7707ade78922f1a84f04d39b232add
d9eb3bb3972b0e56c7003beff7109cf69e124fdf
52720 F20101109_AABCOG hillier_m_Page_39.pro
912f2c01c13d44e8f3e49b23062089e0
369fe3c0e445014bc43acd664c52c58424e65b76
94289 F20101109_AABCJJ UFE0022116_00001.xml
ca37377784e2818e09ea95f5475da789
78c1f5c4a56de7134383b5592106e16bc338400b
35307 F20101109_AABCEN hillier_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
25a2a82ee48aafc096d909f20f1912ec
a814b2eb6d203798b449470c8bbc341c0c92c946
50317 F20101109_AABCOH hillier_m_Page_40.pro
476846d4726ad6397caa44d0cf2a34c6
792291d2dbca5f0a82dbe176009d42f3fb19e492
25288 F20101109_AABCEO hillier_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
10b440555b34fa0417761de80c484423
c2031a58f0a086a81b2dad55242a3e5f253d24c9
15728 F20101109_AABCOI hillier_m_Page_42.pro
7c0c5223c0bfeee6e786cce9b99aad3e
0deef46638dde0e90c42e6e7e1c2c1c3c8089065
F20101109_AABCEP hillier_m_Page_39.tif
4b8c084d7bf45a36a4724bcf8e1c26d1
f5cabf468850f885a2243b2dbde95f9c2e5eade9
16734 F20101109_AABCOJ hillier_m_Page_45.pro
faeba2d86a270498577a99cb60d8a4cc
1007c2b5c055ed98591bfe204591029c82df5935
31190 F20101109_AABCJM hillier_m_Page_01.jpg
83f02b629b5f0d8c7a1d7007de2e011d
6e79832517fb2d417df4c19fa4148d3af2ea0e08
57438 F20101109_AABCOK hillier_m_Page_48.pro
5f384fff3dfe2514d19b04761924ad18
51cfa897aa5ca926b1154939d43dc3fb402e0c2a
53218 F20101109_AABCJN hillier_m_Page_04.jpg
3cfa715359900a7a17c509727ebaa172
8700ba3db6b12eaf489603bf0d7ab8358a7874c9
54607 F20101109_AABCEQ hillier_m_Page_26.pro
4174ad92e06cc77dc51ce0357d4685bc
4cefb1553700cfb5a43c6ffbe55bdfe4b3136bad
49480 F20101109_AABCOL hillier_m_Page_51.pro
21a18359014a3ac82d5e0ddff00f693b
bbf46171e798573d7d76aac9b6208b318484e9ac
117452 F20101109_AABCJO hillier_m_Page_05.jpg
ef54547981c332623262491320bc653d
67fe65b9e43a49a51eb79d06501e144e4d535a36
34487 F20101109_AABCER hillier_m_Page_08.pro
797fc86c5a60eb8d4e9c1a7fe448f973
0287bef0136765e06eac812206853e3bcb8da254
56074 F20101109_AABCOM hillier_m_Page_52.pro
9228aca9dae2c3092fd27085c1a1c470
2c3ccad6554cf7377136836eb88c7ccfef81a922
82864 F20101109_AABCJP hillier_m_Page_06.jpg
293c24c79f7f56c2de8cbadd48f492f1
db191edb2f514ad1fe23c56927faaa088a9429f7
54351 F20101109_AABCES hillier_m_Page_49.pro
c46843ade5320c42a507603fa6eec7de
6e48e50388e2c3ea3c00013cdd7262a422aef967
33474 F20101109_AABCON hillier_m_Page_53.pro
7f4a1c0c94eb5c44a766f172bf549fec
981e2ccc649ec32b128247e40e11c19f05245f57
13501 F20101109_AABCJQ hillier_m_Page_07.jpg
a34be5551e1b5a021df4c1c54f25b6cb
9dfc9fc1cedd51041179f9cd0cd28e01b6b86155
34882 F20101109_AABCET hillier_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
c38876ecbf5f13d4a66a42356dfa773d
566b926d02320b354efbdf7e7a3134f7a6c5a676
26243 F20101109_AABCOO hillier_m_Page_54.pro
babbc11799d6a586cf9ec6da8699165b
517f5f58ac90e6c189e53abcba4ca58633e61b6c
27659 F20101109_AABCJR hillier_m_Page_09.jpg
077302054dcf1ed07e4f6da1b6a0a415
425e1bffdad919d3200257203c0d728be538dc7d
9094 F20101109_AABCEU hillier_m_Page_59thm.jpg
dcdd02139013ba0b3ecd2e36b41cebe5
d82d53e1e385cbbf417472f7d5eef4fd85a95ee2
15296 F20101109_AABCOP hillier_m_Page_55.pro
c1867a1d7759e78f54218375e33699ab
3c9b5f9b5e5ecaf2fd697092a3bb8376ff741514
99437 F20101109_AABCJS hillier_m_Page_10.jpg
eccc9dc5006b5ecd0162dfbcae014770
258d0784dbdc20d88b34826a2b12ad0adde0aff8
F20101109_AABCEV hillier_m_Page_35.tif
ca09d6b9390fd91347a4e5a65252f8bc
7012c203d790d453fa7f3997a838bca206b4b2e9
66116 F20101109_AABCOQ hillier_m_Page_56.pro
96a495d0afbb7ae7d649c63e064e6940
95da3ef661b10a4cb451e339414cc8a1af53ec6a
104468 F20101109_AABCJT hillier_m_Page_14.jpg
500b9e893e27cc528d88273d4a55fae3
3d597523b9e17152f6eb8018b1807634c3935687
14228 F20101109_AABCEW hillier_m_Page_43.pro
62767914ef0d741b609e3fc02df32981
f6eb9f39611597321a2d10ad9db25377d3ca828e
66535 F20101109_AABCOR hillier_m_Page_57.pro
665917880d16c49b0e546c6bcaed05af
b280682f9e6098d34d7547981291ae12ed9ccce8
109369 F20101109_AABCJU hillier_m_Page_15.jpg
db6730ac3ff2abaad6529db5d8dafeab
b78c13ca71adcbe89b993333c463a62e4b83b098
109236 F20101109_AABCEX hillier_m_Page_50.jpg
51e945fae030de915ae420c1686affd3
38d7decebc1186596aecbce43f499b3b1ea7eea3
61041 F20101109_AABCOS hillier_m_Page_58.pro
332aed535abe4e84d1d633f3d29a2411
d2270e89af0d60cd7c33cd32837c955b992cd470
36645 F20101109_AABCEY hillier_m_Page_29.pro
e92de6e1e2d780565d675a348bf9917a
3d68767c4a199f296342708e4f680c58ee600171
36390 F20101109_AABCOT hillier_m_Page_61.pro
4f3b742bf85117c54bc7f7eb11e538f0
1aa75a19746a7a419f207335d47a08d5153b9784
114221 F20101109_AABCJV hillier_m_Page_20.jpg
37e1545e5cd80755aea558a702116349
77d955fc613386d6c6faa1b6a2697810ef4545b2
109894 F20101109_AABCEZ hillier_m_Page_27.jpg
d7dfa8ecd094b3a81f15890f687833ea
8030383c806eb044a7e603e9d8bc0213f90c8615
90 F20101109_AABCOU hillier_m_Page_02.txt
7821c4fc5700cc3e34e138cce3626e04
3903a6412c12ae34458dc07736a8801bb6a5d551
112121 F20101109_AABCJW hillier_m_Page_22.jpg
4fa8cf7874f0fb213eb9b18d9a891f4f
1bdf7040a9686711768270e6a1d4a8be70604396
3871 F20101109_AABCOV hillier_m_Page_05.txt
a2ffb38c4ced92754cfb2150cad84b93
2f03b8f7e2f102e2f89c91e07acd451d512f9d92
114931 F20101109_AABCJX hillier_m_Page_24.jpg
61cd0ae23a76216ccb1336ee30f4197f
adbae45d7c0f2dad5881066172e2e70b26d08f8d
2129 F20101109_AABCCC hillier_m_Page_47.txt
e4c66c72cc6f92ec987af234655a4bf9
9f6f261d92991bfde5e1bdb22d45002e1db85542
2723 F20101109_AABCOW hillier_m_Page_06.txt
13195eef13643bda40c9f0eb113ad5a3
cf643297dbfe0a5edb568b3354740a210f79dd53
1308 F20101109_AABCHA hillier_m_Page_13thm.jpg
1eb4f45000b730c6c95c520cfdfff921
088b51a7a23971932f070cd08070c8107c4f7d2e
76265 F20101109_AABCJY hillier_m_Page_29.jpg
610d304a0821bf8ae00902a2abeb23e6
5334ab45c8aa56cd51d28b8f6afe81695a96fd91
110980 F20101109_AABCCD hillier_m_Page_25.jpg
f7e82c92ff4fa2b17eefa2cef392cc68
37a8c1d0629f14c5910b6b72112bd9cbcf3d68a0
408 F20101109_AABCOX hillier_m_Page_07.txt
ae6b26d4e92d554f88c37d70a07f2aae
7429cca6b26735813648f51d7512cef551ec9490
13315 F20101109_AABCHB hillier_m_Page_13.jpg
931747692c4102a910d6350ee187d7db
82df34e80aad8cd5eae26318804ddc9e23ca0953
98434 F20101109_AABCJZ hillier_m_Page_31.jpg
a762b47e39157b42cdabbde5776e3bf4
da58cc59653ab72ac0eabf4ce127f40574f4092f
F20101109_AABCCE hillier_m_Page_23.txt
a0f3933349de4ec2ceca021dbe35d2ed
89fede0e0c0d1b12a9db131ccb830ed984274aed
1436 F20101109_AABCOY hillier_m_Page_08.txt
bbc65891ca485a43d7fd9f05400f60ff
77e0e7d983880ddfa796e3e8eddd7afd6624859e
117748 F20101109_AABCHC hillier_m_Page_22.jp2
6650bccaf086416dc119780b1c93496f
f1bef94427fa5b9788cc91b3b7ad0b5b36a13eed
54407 F20101109_AABCCF hillier_m_Page_27.pro
b29dc020a034769bf6626b6a55ded54a
37a59f6675ffa35ced3f951f4aec9d8ed30ebc89
672 F20101109_AABCOZ hillier_m_Page_09.txt
4968dbf9c4aad8fc494ba26806189302
e7f68304d8126e1478b77488539c0a330e4cdc86
117607 F20101109_AABCHD hillier_m_Page_23.jpg
dd5c49f14b88d8797a77cf713711f186
a796885585e0f6cf65dcbffb0fe861869a51a456
32441 F20101109_AABCCG hillier_m_Page_55.jp2
98fb9db22290dd5a7e4781d076c57e7e
2fdc4c46ec5c78de3f6d9ef9206e91a426ae53ce
F20101109_AABCMA hillier_m_Page_04.tif
0de8157fb2bacb2a3e4bee6afd883be3
7573468365136f5a243a76d7a90d5d0c3a735676
F20101109_AABCHE hillier_m_Page_57.tif
e3425fbd52aabe681f5a331a6cd37861
114bd51f02cc50ace6023efb72b9138b18758fd3
751 F20101109_AABCCH hillier_m_Page_45.txt
89908bc7fd33f5547bd8b5afa7c38ca2
20be6dcaec5f7b84d16349c5480ded82b251d8e1
F20101109_AABCMB hillier_m_Page_05.tif
9a658edf92588c0193d1063dab626f89
50491ebfc58ae6ecda35d132f60dbd32b9eb4a47
54596 F20101109_AABCHF hillier_m_Page_15.pro
d3cf75da081ce8356b6c267c9e4a15cc
8e2614f6737039dbf8e55c8516780036e317f26f
436535 F20101109_AABCCI hillier_m_Page_43.jp2
89a3cc570959141ec249109bd53f4198
315fa7ba8fafe3f1dc1dcff680f83209b979931d
F20101109_AABCMC hillier_m_Page_07.tif
1dda4b0b8a0b19d893cecd3f207b76c2
5b1d55fd6726c91b3d6951faf55c2bd1d7c8a38a
33424 F20101109_AABCHG hillier_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
d6241be7121362e23a17d331ef6986f5
36405aefa2fed2c2a4a3dc665119f784e307581f
38059 F20101109_AABCRA hillier_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
0d9e5809f280d6973bb46d7e730255d9
f7ccf70098a5b74c5e848296b7ba6664f13b9b17
601969 F20101109_AABCCJ hillier_m.pdf
be2ce2e491e72e8fa0c794189bfa439e
a25a37699a0cc6555c154c4e17a6409d0e4c3b3e
F20101109_AABCMD hillier_m_Page_08.tif
7563882eb5b7112e103ed6243e51ead2
875a0bc198822f11b828a6f44efc373e4855880c
F20101109_AABCHH hillier_m_Page_22.tif
7aff367b3ffddc14280ce49fbc6d7d30
711ab3575df35cf4bcd5474ec6b15f24e0805251
9177 F20101109_AABCRB hillier_m_Page_23thm.jpg
c588ae94320d5dfea6176738a2e4ee33
7cdb62d630a849872061a71c0c1def9ad28d5385
111912 F20101109_AABCCK hillier_m_Page_32.jp2
96a8000fff83f12421d9b899c7acf2b4
f2290d30f06605bcf1c49cf2fb6099d2572ffd76
F20101109_AABCME hillier_m_Page_09.tif
4143ebb3d137dda91a5c052866316337
8579b1bf158fe52fa7b91624977ae75322b0ad39
F20101109_AABCHI hillier_m_Page_20thm.jpg
bbf124c17c21de6675dab6dc62fa43ec
55e267977df74b41da956e12a0bd9f5d319ef8b6
36937 F20101109_AABCRC hillier_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
bee68dbca68e1f704c58e9edc6f97f60
48513017b146dda26b9cdf2ef45813ed85c4e284
484 F20101109_AABCCL hillier_m_Page_37.txt
9e7c745b87cf25dc1aaa14d26b2ef671
2998eb9a66fccbaeba6ddf7fa83f9ad20f6ad525
F20101109_AABCMF hillier_m_Page_10.tif
08c848dce42ea6a805edf1c4d7af7d67
205b487b5b79a31430691870fa7fbbaa154b2eb2
2156 F20101109_AABCHJ hillier_m_Page_34.txt
bca5bb8d3ce0a8f1f80d7237f3387c20
4042c0395ee355842d4c3ec7577ae9db1050464b
9237 F20101109_AABCRD hillier_m_Page_24thm.jpg
821d83006392d531bab98aba9637688d
cd990f7d5518878057eaba5abaa4d00a755ee257
108995 F20101109_AABCCM hillier_m_Page_14.jp2
52abf5c8bfd39fafe1a148acdfa48c70
b61042fc8652dc7008b6337313689c466fe9cd4e
F20101109_AABCMG hillier_m_Page_12.tif
3e361dbe90038e031a88cd32d53d1776
238fcc0980630cae0100466659451e0681c30009
38449 F20101109_AABCHK hillier_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
5fc8818a336a1d13eb4955da998d280a
8435eb132042fb8810944cdf90ddbeba5175bc34
36160 F20101109_AABCRE hillier_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
c90b7f8fe7c859e1fc4e96a36fcb0763
a0e6ac90fcd5c2039282a8ee442b241fd5ddfe64
107970 F20101109_AABCCN hillier_m_Page_40.jp2
4a637684c39d308b0973d2bf38e4efc9
c20b39f0da0622bdeb10112d2804cff2bdbae308
F20101109_AABCMH hillier_m_Page_13.tif
bdedde978a84bf3b36cde30acb294d03
a54619ea5e5caee2b014b6a1cada41705d90c25c
8355 F20101109_AABCHL hillier_m_Page_14thm.jpg
fd9ecaae3f54a11d64df606517e910b7
85b9b2c57a48351a6e094dd38c8302998946adcf
8959 F20101109_AABCRF hillier_m_Page_26thm.jpg
35d4d2a9e880e35b31a901e2cd3e6449
7999eb7194c45c4d13d34324ddd88778a60656bd
F20101109_AABCMI hillier_m_Page_14.tif
b2233c11bc8402a761b5eec75806e0c6
125d73ea5f4516db6a46479620c5a3e888f5da01
822 F20101109_AABCHM hillier_m_Page_55.txt
edcde4fd88f763a1ededfd99ec130a53
4d5d522983e982221c242aa91348da20ae006262
36899 F20101109_AABCRG hillier_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
4fb33ecf8fdaaab2ee897ff135b3404d
e5d59d9af25c9aa4d00632757ff65308c4c7723f
206 F20101109_AABCCO hillier_m_Page_03.txt
a9e3bb410be6126b185af5fbd8971c13
101bf7ac69ef7c1eb40c25e43cd0362c5e366323
F20101109_AABCMJ hillier_m_Page_16.tif
d3c0d7e920b1f7c20093bb7e9da2fc5f
958fb38fcde2da3da63af0d9910089127d340496
F20101109_AABCHN hillier_m_Page_15.tif
656857261e6473900ac97776d9e551a7
dae3242160b33ba127a777ba7c66a5e571563c56
8832 F20101109_AABCRH hillier_m_Page_28thm.jpg
d43d71b7909b24211f6cd307bd1e63f9
6c02275adcbac796d9b7e635de3e98836569769b
101564 F20101109_AABCCP hillier_m_Page_10.jp2
0bb39ec6329ce1e6495231f531fabb6d
5ef6f5a6e49639afff163fef13032c5023aa47f0
F20101109_AABCMK hillier_m_Page_17.tif
fa56b459385af98654718e20f4b33ca4
a6a42e379a8f970ec9955c178ae416d253c9696a
53791 F20101109_AABCHO hillier_m_Page_08.jpg
f820b09597699c5e2bfaef43a9122b5d
d82fe3b324854b309794ccf3153d04fc28f1f6f6
26079 F20101109_AABCRI hillier_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
45f07b65231a32f817b3d464f4e31559
613850f0f0d7b7da2b4b5e33b24b54fbfe85216a
60267 F20101109_AABCCQ hillier_m_Page_54.jpg
c738d3b56ac6a74be74e18be3c392900
db7b0e51e2fc74419087908ce8db13348c248814
F20101109_AABCML hillier_m_Page_19.tif
de73689239adcc37a08934b4b40e3d8f
a5faab9b6f40c517add17991407566b69eec63b4
36778 F20101109_AABCHP hillier_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
a634e909d43c0cfbcb91c31870a9c36f
82dd17ae525e3b826512774120fab6d42328f1df
6308 F20101109_AABCRJ hillier_m_Page_29thm.jpg
56c7755a57c50441ecff70b3c0e74825
a86521609626f819bb3c9732de2f276b7545c712
282591 F20101109_AABCCR hillier_m_Page_37.jp2
ce83e38249f8ee0eb005187c32d61152
bd92f95c31a8a580cc779597a5f434393564955d
F20101109_AABCMM hillier_m_Page_20.tif
8fb529cfd2a980c968d4c2e338e45715
e5de6515d03f6655c29c67ac026e59bdd0fac154
115743 F20101109_AABCHQ hillier_m_Page_26.jp2
b0966686d0bdf4833e5b38ac1d816d4e
a57ee62e50a0be4edc7d516d9a5ac5900aa04b6d
32355 F20101109_AABCRK hillier_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
b645e5e0ea3fec21d5517faab2ca920d
6669e9b5289d5421802a50519b81f7c8f78fb32c
2212 F20101109_AABCCS hillier_m_Page_22.txt
39fc9c07dd70b0c8d45209bd6e318130
d9a2353a87d3bf3dce67bc5ef287c41af85edc44
F20101109_AABCMN hillier_m_Page_21.tif
4de58dcaa17ce1c1eb602698a8eb3ec5
e8a8a3e413aeb6c8300313ca448c43471a4e6b22
51294 F20101109_AABCHR hillier_m_Page_45.jpg
586e7d9c43c71b4cefb0b43e643a2b7f
747f038049f7c485acc3bb25469c3ed8e3e75700
7983 F20101109_AABCRL hillier_m_Page_31thm.jpg
47678239403a348ae397c777195fbdba
0a1d7a9868eb1581230f9bbde758ffb13831f72d
8909 F20101109_AABCCT hillier_m_Page_12thm.jpg
35609949d771a91b040b110814b4a0ae
0e08e0c6c12ea409a7a382607ebed0940fed46e2
F20101109_AABCMO hillier_m_Page_23.tif
1d9ea9cc25fd2cb25e904d8fd0071552
958c8df0b63bffab362091839d4f0655aaad6f8e
2280 F20101109_AABCHS hillier_m_Page_17.txt
0890195f95703be46131298f3fbf41ce
42aaf535222dcb5f7c79da0e1a2a176927ece850
34675 F20101109_AABCRM hillier_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
c9f64d856a917c9c7e2cf374c3a5cda1
362f39163ac578bcb87e5468045308f9df7176a5
114559 F20101109_AABCCU hillier_m_Page_18.jpg
348d7716abfe05f0addc53a390007fd2
04620d11844142e3e07803bd50d8aef03ee603ce
F20101109_AABCMP hillier_m_Page_24.tif
78d3d3820b6ea6ec9e049e2d592d23c7
f485736f727b0cde56287f7874d42ced712d7447
8460 F20101109_AABCRN hillier_m_Page_34thm.jpg
6717d7ddd0018fa0f647d5aea8409a72
cc513432f122981b75398e394a20e504ed5261b8
6260 F20101109_AABCCV hillier_m_Page_61thm.jpg
a86ba0947e098125e76bbb2ca3b1d647
a041d2618bb250c8927d4a9247c0c248d41f05cd
F20101109_AABCMQ hillier_m_Page_25.tif
92caa21f2708af61a46a3b9b768ffb34
83dcd74dd8e69a66fa444c821d3bde25cacdd071
25484 F20101109_AABCRO hillier_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
49940ba8fd779e663723e3291b5c623a
7d6805e81f558cf680ee64f361a88f2ed75e26ee
4981 F20101109_AABCHT hillier_m_Page_13.pro
d4cf53738a9806373d94d7e0dd0a10d2
de2c71885c2bcb924ede0075354541dee7ad5890
51009 F20101109_AABCCW hillier_m_Page_42.jpg
39ea18bfe6acb9c5af0671605d33c1b1
34f099cfdb8001332df63b3e0a888f7d12ac996f
F20101109_AABCMR hillier_m_Page_26.tif
bd4952a0eac15b6de3637c6f431af631
d9f5d341ba363f8fb2792f6b4f505c3e0f256f4d
4279 F20101109_AABCRP hillier_m_Page_36thm.jpg
2c471a89231720d1b6bf99f43a4cfa91
f6d0eb0b8f480168882d653895dca1efe00cf1fd
121496 F20101109_AABCHU hillier_m_Page_23.jp2
ff9a1884f64540a62d778fc489455133
fbee9cf094a8ca998f50a62c5dcb7711d53e16e9
37772 F20101109_AABCCX hillier_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
b11ecf40b41f5d85c346438e8fe97207
3471b2fe71f8b15d7a02bfcf5308aec8cb7fc93a
F20101109_AABCMS hillier_m_Page_27.tif
d755397930ca1916e96f67f3156b41e2
daebed0df1621c53adc7b4f9cc168ec6548b6cc8
11332 F20101109_AABCRQ hillier_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
27478a6cb1bd96b5c689b65116f909cc
d26fd219464e3ba6b88971bf8b0889d92428390c
114446 F20101109_AABCHV hillier_m_Page_15.jp2
bd7e18f3bc0766124c17e83691661149
defc8833c863bd798e5135beb1b5a094b1b7bd1a
22158 F20101109_AABCCY hillier_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
62d6ad2001619259df6389f93dcd7f51
31d21e567f96d17eeace523657bcc2de347a336c
F20101109_AABCMT hillier_m_Page_29.tif
990ce0cad8734bbe1131dbc5f41fa141
2c7079d6db62fedb356b4bd55703cc5a06a05c46
29471 F20101109_AABCRR hillier_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
be2039f22345cd5a9dd7828f46ebceef
cacf0a325e0eed2ca1c453c7a9b1abf250562536
9181 F20101109_AABCHW hillier_m_Page_22thm.jpg
bab530e1f11e8f68bb8ef86affbf5e8b
e05c8b867c77e77d281712ee3c3da71d24e9428e
8864 F20101109_AABCCZ hillier_m_Page_50thm.jpg
745f165cad3a2896b3d89cfcbc617b83
f43e8bd4fea6136d2e49283687cfcb491e15424f
F20101109_AABCMU hillier_m_Page_30.tif
c4e977dd35cd88b41e134f979d8a8edc
ea2a759b0ad072e7954d4b671a67be5889cfcbd5
8056 F20101109_AABCRS hillier_m_Page_38thm.jpg
230e8308e7610eb88aec55b8cdfe931d
9673c5db8f11fccab604ab00e4effe0e356ad603
F20101109_AABCMV hillier_m_Page_36.tif
9d4863b6a59de93e352fff0df94f7063
93e2b4be7cbd35d031e5f67c00fe939a23bee486
F20101109_AABCHX hillier_m_Page_06.tif
f020ff88c6347537f43aca1a3ea5cc6c
8422a2f8a93dbe27fa04de74705a91713aed7be1
35659 F20101109_AABCRT hillier_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
7a699e578f1d2da0d1f6c8021831708b
37799f38e016e98f9d9f432132ceb3e5a3b5ad52
F20101109_AABCMW hillier_m_Page_37.tif
d7a85f71a49ea7f5a17bda85cea58a68
05bc3965952d96a0a622371b15216fced4aa76f8
112455 F20101109_AABCFA hillier_m_Page_46.jp2
c28e331af360cf25de0c49bd250babc4
55ceab333d3c72aa42edfcad6d4adf12fa29cef2
F20101109_AABCHY hillier_m_Page_43.tif
b91a3993b08a0bd455207c2059d04320
d8ddc38c91061b50e0d616918288acffef3f103d
8779 F20101109_AABCRU hillier_m_Page_39thm.jpg
3b3b8fec5965e1243049885641512824
af160ec5a9f5ab25582278bf69bf7d8e6aa37c72
F20101109_AABCMX hillier_m_Page_38.tif
55dcaa4b4b14624786a0b216e6f50021
464f217b3e3e27a018f8079137894fceb526e98c
114685 F20101109_AABCFB hillier_m_Page_48.jpg
503b17d4c707a44ea8f955683480eb12
cff3fe953b4a605b8dffb4672b5674c3c58f8793
1735 F20101109_AABCHZ hillier_m_Page_41.txt
fa7ad82340b4b58b1acc3c3e5b9e50c6
c4741795be100eaae4281e48c9fc67f56d4f8c1e
18651 F20101109_AABCRV hillier_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
47c22d973341d84f8f7881ba1265352e
04867c7320cab41aa19879b85d93a971754aaeea
131607 F20101109_AABCFC hillier_m_Page_58.jp2
24a5a7983baa8a179c206e8395b06203
4b03d0465ccffed26ce4c7ee87a2ef7dc7753e1b
17148 F20101109_AABCRW hillier_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
198f8ca0ca444e7ba3c01fc9bb1cd636
d06de1e3ee3d8c578a7afc5676c22962d9786f39
76793 F20101109_AABCKA hillier_m_Page_35.jpg
f20862d73960ca86373133d0015d7dc8
89bc7ab2668f2b6bc6c8fdcaacdfc02388324d0a
F20101109_AABCMY hillier_m_Page_41.tif
0dcf769a4263caa1fe68d215ede6ff67
2e814e2467dbaf683a829971222d921e6cf257c2
6885 F20101109_AABCFD hillier_m_Page_35thm.jpg
062e389fbe0a464ceb284090e36c5ac6
8fb978444e4cc0287345c5d9a705d7ac3d7182b6
14026 F20101109_AABCRX hillier_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
d152dcb25a324ac44a2609244552ea0b
2f402dded025fa607697677e1821e19c5e7945ee
90998 F20101109_AABCKB hillier_m_Page_38.jpg
ef17802806f5099330df9564581b1473
c970c1d7e1c1085311dac4aa6da021e4f159ae7e
F20101109_AABCMZ hillier_m_Page_44.tif
7d58662abcf773fa1f80a5199293d224
6db0ab3dfe9bfe89e9cec9623d8379750882bb0b
105828 F20101109_AABCFE hillier_m_Page_39.jpg
2e622050969cf2cefc1165f36dc121f3
484d7ab08d37c780a9da1f9f1cf488b9b9493e7a
4180 F20101109_AABCRY hillier_m_Page_43thm.jpg
91792e0f11b23c1e45f6f4e9719d395e
7ebd69ac147198dfc6ff50f4b80df16826cfba2a
62110 F20101109_AABCKC hillier_m_Page_41.jpg
d6c8fdd65b6ff63cae85b83bfab1b71e
18dbded144d6cd4eb98cd05fa2ccffffaa57f4fa
F20101109_AABCFF hillier_m_Page_28.tif
bcd475c4c1ec82b38eb721ab5378d49e
980d7349ca9aae11c3878a1d37627179a43b77ac
12815 F20101109_AABCRZ hillier_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
27265eec9e5401cd19ff7b49df1b0466
8297a409c8eab8424d85278d15fee6902724f76a
44150 F20101109_AABCKD hillier_m_Page_43.jpg
e4191b05f24479160d2a925387658f7f
8fb28de7f32a6eeb89fdade9e9fed537bbef0f80
36198 F20101109_AABCFG hillier_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
fa0ad1e5ac12af33820cc7be605485f8
2bc87511c6da3dfa5157c06c0f4a14c3739712a0
574 F20101109_AABCPA hillier_m_Page_11.txt
1f6059c320e91db55b0637cacf601f51
d50fc83b71dc03ab5d8d9c27ba07ded548844c24
37906 F20101109_AABCKE hillier_m_Page_44.jpg
591ce331fa9d8cc8115eae9d7652d264
6ac188148bd2f5990cd348993bc203348ed542c2
9080 F20101109_AABCFH hillier_m_Page_48thm.jpg
1e75d6b4993c7842cdab8a54101a853d
d07d13d2d22e7b83a95b24454516bd9e8b223b0f
200 F20101109_AABCPB hillier_m_Page_13.txt
79ad8bb1fc6cecf1ed1d85be885858fb
f62cf50cb2e5e4170282a1ea3d4a10d19b02a94c
107767 F20101109_AABCKF hillier_m_Page_46.jpg
bac1309d4e3bad76d550d54b31674ef5
4de8cbd710adef84343acccfa58746fa0336cda3
118766 F20101109_AABCFI hillier_m_Page_21.jp2
210bf33af30d8367325bff7702a0d3c8
022a971be5136c233841c6af2fe7d0f877d52355
2112 F20101109_AABCPC hillier_m_Page_14.txt
bd4b5d20d69be10b6fd2f69527cdced3
36f2ccac522067198b38f71dbca0c22abcdac19f
105252 F20101109_AABCKG hillier_m_Page_47.jpg
3bae422d440f7a08c988091d6ca18dbd
c7bcfb4d176343757ec50560556842e6dc878f64
58237 F20101109_AABCFJ hillier_m_Page_17.pro
141ab7cfdb1c89b361f48be48b4d0248
27d61e084f05766db1b24286ebf096f1efd76dde
2144 F20101109_AABCPD hillier_m_Page_15.txt
e2aa2cbcdd73cb76b14e405b3c95b687
8721973c62493c336722496d88a28df9903353c3
110357 F20101109_AABCKH hillier_m_Page_49.jpg
df275fe674bd124e4489b18368b77ff0
c301970650229b9a43745b69ce5cc5be8c122acb
F20101109_AABCFK hillier_m_Page_32.tif
3f38f8dcb73fc9fdcb78484b98737062
23b48ff12c2e91b37921db0d6c4fb2b14788886b
2283 F20101109_AABCPE hillier_m_Page_18.txt
cbb76110260d6f8f897e633d00eaa9c0
231abfa1bced1311f9ab5e4aa47e6d153ece3e27
99763 F20101109_AABCKI hillier_m_Page_51.jpg
7c5da836367a2c405af276db6e8f5058
9d2ce8027308655d1543afcb3985400b8d539f10
194294 F20101109_AABCFL hillier_m_Page_07.jp2
af2e2b53885a2e7636c6b5f313a42d12
f9907a9473130670333ab6a7c3024d0b3f8c1f45
2253 F20101109_AABCPF hillier_m_Page_19.txt
351afe5f4e2f4aad778d9da486984546
35ecb574fca687463166e092ef2469c187065f7b
112034 F20101109_AABCKJ hillier_m_Page_52.jpg
8c70026ea1b0e5e0c446ee89d16cb828
48b04b0ac4b56278dcd4d4a9730e6e7daef4113a
56699 F20101109_AABCFM hillier_m_Page_21.pro
e56915c7b389443db0c1e5e77a944426
ea4c124cf7e8f2b8f99a5989d91c6d0f2d36d40f
2241 F20101109_AABCPG hillier_m_Page_20.txt
b2186a9ac0f8ddceed9c98aff0b22875
79b3c142616d69121b805fb06d4824eb8a04e489
70899 F20101109_AABCKK hillier_m_Page_53.jpg
0b60c493e96154ee5f6b2b3a57d27ad4
8163932986dfac676498ac9c3fe6934ab99bd840
105648 F20101109_AABCFN hillier_m_Page_32.jpg
6c234e0a637200fbc8ceb89497d81d05
608081d2f5aa589ee5b7717db4d7f6440eb7a6b3
2226 F20101109_AABCPH hillier_m_Page_21.txt
a2eecd03d7fe393634499ff50f0b3457
87628f3b702a17c02baf00f56a0d11177fd22c92
35011 F20101109_AABCKL hillier_m_Page_55.jpg
ce9bc3938a132d73034eb6d8b5278797
35e7184c248e9749c2db89947c9ce72be8708e15
140763 F20101109_AABCFO hillier_m_Page_57.jp2
fcb9a26a9b5f7db5e5810e0c69438b84
ce9a22a2e99fcde6707e7fccbb7cde55949e3f6f
2279 F20101109_AABCPI hillier_m_Page_24.txt
8918593000e64549036d1f448578f75b
b6af6606fe1d9cff940d71efe461332144b0f935
136259 F20101109_AABCKM hillier_m_Page_56.jpg
68500a621a22e330a12e991434ace6c9
d16319224154bc800c12e06046e8083bf7d1632e
F20101109_AABCFP hillier_m_Page_52.tif
1e6da48381c0cacdc0ba7021982dd06a
2a0fee836255ec2a4cc9d9a729ccec678f6fc863
2143 F20101109_AABCPJ hillier_m_Page_26.txt
27b78115c8df14120723d9e69e4a076c
e1ce17e2c55e20931eb61e890fc3e5a8856ff554
136067 F20101109_AABCKN hillier_m_Page_57.jpg
e9825aca35489ecc85c4a862e533b10b
f3a48fde2b12225bf0873040679c9e6c83554986
104104 F20101109_AABCFQ hillier_m_Page_34.jpg
a621b583b8e41c38a23e0c344f1ae4c1
044b3dc7d6bb2e943dbeb3c4b596a19f9a7e701d
2162 F20101109_AABCPK hillier_m_Page_27.txt
1f0c71ebe387decb7ed96803ebc91ac9
481e24012ec013ce1b9a46df07445e1b92c6444b
124498 F20101109_AABCKO hillier_m_Page_58.jpg
dd329919835dad7b30d19396a749d726
fb7a9573c5a44c973f3d11dfb8722d27e5b96efb
2192 F20101109_AABCPL hillier_m_Page_28.txt
5add5b4f1cb3d524a4bd1f9f29d2888e
32ce2751d24aa5ccedc38fa0e55872edaa16f0fc
127319 F20101109_AABCKP hillier_m_Page_59.jpg
756e13321cfba532a7b333298d9a6c4c
3e300afc2be63fe9b5bd0d7ce5b03d1eb74fb42e
24707 F20101109_AABCFR hillier_m_Page_60.jp2
523a5de1ab8a99697ca7f9b27b9e79ae
3142d3f8710072651bdc50c67fd3a068a911e955
465 F20101109_AABCPM hillier_m_Page_30.txt
9b895651814971da985ea8b5cd74962b
5db9bf0bf18fec172ac77bf0202d491dafbdb1b2







HEAD ACCELERATION AND ASSOCIATED PAIN FELT IN THE NECK REGION
DURING A SIMULATED AUTOMOBILE LOW VELOCITY REAR-END COLLISION AS A
FUNCTION OF SEAT BACK ANGLE




















By

MARTIN CHARLES HILLIER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008






























2008 Martin Charles Hillier




























To all those who supported me throughout my ventures, including my wife, family, advisors, and
financial supporters.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without my supervisory committee. In

particular, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Tillman for all of his guidance and support. His

advice and encouragement made this possible. Next, I would like to thank Dr. John Chow. Dr.

Chow was instrumental throughout my career at the University of Florida and he taught me

many of the concepts regarding biomechanics. I would also like to thank Dr. Jim Ipser for his

financial support and for sharing his wealth of knowledge in the fields of car crash safety and

physics. Next, I thank Dr. Ronald Siders and Kim Fournier for contributing their time and effort

to help make this a success. In addition, I send a sincere thank you to my family and my wife for

their support throughout this long and arduous process. Their understanding and sacrifice is

more than I could ask for. Finally, I thank the subjects who participated in my study.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IS T O F T A B L E S ................................................................................. 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

L IST O F A B B R E V IA TIO N S ............................ .............................................. ....................... 9

A B S T R A C T ................................ ............................................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 12

2 R E V IEW O F L ITER A TU R E .................................................................... ... ....................14

W h ip la sh ................... ............................................................ ................ 1 4
W hiplash Stages ........................................... ........................... 14
Injury M mechanism .......... .................................................................... .. ........ ....17
Specific Injuries Caused by Whiplash and Associated Symptoms .............................18
Prevalence of Whiplash Injuries in Society ......................................... ...............21
Automobile Characteristics Contributing to Injury ..................................... ...............22
S e at A n g le .............................................................................2 2
H eadrest F unction and P position ............................................................ .....................23
S e a t B e lt ..........................................................................................2 5
Crash Factors Affecting Injury ....................................... ... .................................25
Comparison of Body Kinematics during Rear-End Collisions and Frontal Impacts ......25
Relationship Between Selected Velocity and Injury Tolerance................. ............26
Influence of Occupant Awareness during a Crash ............................... .....................26
D em graphics of Selected Participants ........................................................... .....................27
Human Subjects Compared to Anthropomorphic Dummies and Cadavers ..................27
Likelihood of Injury in M ales and Fem ales ............................ .... ......... ......... .........28
Effect of A ge on Injury Susceptibility........................................................................... 29

3 M E T H O D S ......................................................................................................3 1

P a rtic ip a n ts ....................................................................................................................... 3 1
E xperim mental A pparatu s .............................................................................. ..................... 3 1
R a m p ................... ................... ...................1..........
S eat P latfo rm .............................................................................3 2
Instrum entation ......... ..................................... ...........................32
P ro c e d u re .............. .... ............................................................... 3 3
D ata A analysis ................................................... 34









A acceleration of the H ead ..................................................................... .... ...................34
P ain S cale ................................................ ..................... .. .. .... 3 5
Statistical A analysis ............................................... 35
A acceleration of the H ead ..................................................................... .... ...................35
P ain S c a le ................................................................3 5

4 R E S U L T S .......................................................................... 3 8

Participants .........................................38
Horizontal Acceleration................... ............... 38
V vertical A acceleration ................................................................................ 38
Resultant A acceleration ............................................ 38
T im e M option A naly sis .................................................................39
Pain Scale............... ............................................ ........ 40

5 D IS C U S S IO N ........................................................................................................4 6

H orizontal Acceleration ............................................ 46
Vertical Acceleration .................. .................. ......................... ........ .. ........ 47
R esultant A acceleration ......... ............................................................................ ...... .. .. 48
Tim e M option Analysis.............. ... .............................. ........... 49
P ain ......................... .. ............. ... ...... ...... .... .. 5 1
Limitations ................................. ....... ...... .......................... .. 52
C onclu sions..... ..........................................................53

APPENDIX

A MEDICAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................54

B SO R E N E SS SC A L E ..................................................................................... .............. .. 55

LIST OF REFERENCES .................. ..................................... ..... ................... 56

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ...............................................................................................61


















6









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 P participant characteristics .................................................................... .................... 4 1

4-2 Acceleration data for time motion analysis ........................................ .............. 41









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Stages of whiplash m option. ......................................................................... 30

3-1 Automobile seat mounted on a rolling platform. .................................. ................36

3-2 Ram p and stopping apparatus. ............................................... ............................ 36

3-3 G uard rails on ram p. .......................................................................36

3-4 Accelerom eter and m outhpiece ......................................................... ............. 37

3-5 Sam ple horizontal acceleration graph................................................... .................... 37

4-1 Mean horizontal, vertical, and resultant acceleration for all angles.............. ..............42

4-2 Horizontal and vertical acceleration for participant three, 1000, trial one......................43

4-3 Time-motion analysis for participant three, 1000, trial one...........................................44

4-4 M ean pain ratings at each seat position. ................................................ .................... 45

4-5 Mean pain rating interaction with seat position and time..............................................45









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIS Abbreviated injury scale

cm Centimeter

Av / At Change in velocity divided by change in time

o Degrees

ft Feet

Hz Hertz

in Inch

kg Kilogram

kph Kilometers per hour

MRI Magnetic resonance imaging

m Meter

m/s2 Meters per second squared

mph Miles per hour

mm Millimeter

ms Milliseconds

lbs Pounds

SCM Sternocleidomastoid muscle

V Volts

WAD Whiplash associated disorder












Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

HEAD ACCELERATION AND ASSOCIATED PAIN FELT IN THE NECK REGION
DURING A SIMULATED AUTOMOBILE LOW VELOCITY REAR-END COLLISION AS A
FUNCTION OF SEAT BACK ANGLE

By

Martin Charles Hillier

May 2008

Chair: Mark Tillman
Major: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology

The angle of the seat back is an important factor in head acceleration and pain felt during

a low velocity rear-end collision. Ten male volunteers with a mean age of 22.40 2.37 years,

mean height of 1.79 0.035 m, and mean mass of 81.92 11.51 kg were exposed to impacts

designed to replicate this type of collision in a lab setting. The change in velocity for each

impact was approximately 8 kph (5 mph). The variable during the study was the angle of the

seat back. Three seat back angles consisting of 1000, 1150, and 130 from horizontal were

tested. In general, as the angle of the seat back increased, the peak horizontal, vertical, and

resultant accelerations decreased. More specifically, significant differences were detected for the

horizontal accelerations with increased values for 1000 when compared to 1150 and 1300. There

was no significance difference observed when comparing the vertical accelerations across the

three seat angles. The resultant acceleration showed significant differences when comparing

130 to 1000 and 1150, with the lower acceleration occurring in the 130 seat position in both

cases. Conversely, pain increased significantly as the angle increased. The 1300 seat position

had significantly higher pain ratings when compared to the 1000 and 1150 seat positions.









Therefore, it can be inferred that there is an inverse relationship between seat back angle and

acceleration while there is a direct relationship between seat back angle and pain. Based on

further analysis of the data collected during this study, it may be possible that the increase in pain

is due to the larger contribution of the muscles and the decreased contribution of the headrest to

stop the head during the trials at 1300. To minimize risk, it is recommended to maintain a 1000

seat back angle when in the front row of an automobile.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Low velocity rear-end collisions are considered to be minor in severity, however they are

very common and they represent a financial burden to society.1 The injuries caused by these

collisions can be classified under one common disorder known as whiplash associated disorder

(WAD). These injuries include vertebral and spinal injuries and muscle strains.2 Although the

injuries related to rear-end collisions are known, the causes are still under investigation.

"Whiplash" is characterized by a sudden and forceful extension of the neck followed by a less

severe flexion of the neck. The motion associated with whiplash injuries has been broken into

five separate phases. Included are the initial response, principal forward acceleration, torso

recovery, head deceleration, and restitution phases.3 Phases that involve extension of the neck

typically cause injuries to the anterior musculature of the neck, intervertebral discs, posterior

vertebral structures, and the anterior longitudinal ligament. Extension occurs during the first two

phases. Flexion of the neck causes less severe injuries including posterior muscle strains and

herniated discs and occurs during the third and fourth phases of the whiplash motion.2

Previous research in this area has focused on factors such as change in velocity, headrest

position, occupant awareness, and gender. However, research in the area of seat orientation has

been limited. Based on the geometry of an automobile seat and the natural seated position of the

occupant, changing the angle of the seat back could create a change in body position and

occupant kinematics, specifically the acceleration that the head undergoes. It is also possible that

a change in acceleration could create a variation in the risk of injury during a low velocity rear-

end collision. The purpose of the current study is to determine whether the angle of the seat back

will contribute to the peak acceleration experienced by the head during a low velocity rear-end

collision. In addition, pain felt by the participant after the collision will be assessed and









compared across seat angles. The findings of this study could provide valuable information to

automotive safety engineers and could assist in the design of a safer automobile seat.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Whiplash

Whiplash Stages

Generally, whiplash injuries occur much more frequently in rear-end collisions than in any

other crash configuration,4 with rear-end collisions accounting for 85% of all crashes reporting

whiplash injuries.5 More specifically, during a low speed, rear-end collision there are five

phases of the motion associated with whiplash injuries. These five phases begin shortly after the

collision between the two automobiles. During the first 100 ms of the collision there is no

movement of the body (Figure 2-1A). Therefore, this initial period is not included in the

sequence of events that causes the injuries associated with whiplash.2

The first phase involving movement of the body is called the initial response. This phase

can last anywhere from 50 to 100 ms.3,6,7 During this phase the seat of the vehicle moves

forward relative to the body due to the rear impact (Figure 2-1B). This applies pressure to the

pelvis and the lower back and also causes the seat back to begin deflecting backwards due to the

forces the body applies to the chair.3 This deflection can be simply explained by Newton's third

law of motion. As the inertial forces of the body accelerate the seat backwards, the seat back

applies an equal force that acts to decelerate the body. The head does not undergo any motion

during this phase nor do the muscles of the neck exhibit any response. However, towards the

end of the first phase, the thoracic vertebrae begin to move forward and slightly upward.6

Finally, the body undergoes the beginning stages of ramping up. Ramping up is defined as the

body sliding up the seat due to the forces encountered during impact. The degree of severity of

this phenomenon changes with the severity of the crash and the inclination of the seat back.7

During low speed collisions (Five mph or less) this motion is typically not severe enough to









cause the occupant's head to rise above the headrest, assuming that the headrest is present and

raised to the appropriate height for the occupant.3

The second phase of the motion is called the principal forward acceleration.3 This phase

lasts approximately 100 ms.3'6'7 At the beginning of this phase, the seat back has reached

maximum deflection3'6 and the head and neck undergo an extension motion.3'6'7 The head moves

backward relative to the torso due to its inertia while accelerating and rotating in the rearward

direction. This rotation can be stopped by the head restraint or by the anatomical structures of

the spine and the neck, if the head restraint is ineffective. In addition, the body continues the

ramping up motion and there is an arching of the torso due to the extension of the spine. The

spine reaches maximum extension during this phase (Figure 2-1C).6 Compression injuries to the

posterior structures of the cervical spine, if present, are a result of this phase.2 The next

significant occurrence in this phase is the activation of the anterior musculature of the neck. This

musculature, specifically the SCM, is actively resisting the abrupt backward motion of the

head.6'7 Due to the time it takes for the nerve impulse to reach the muscle, this peak muscle

activation occurs approximately 70-100 ms after the rearward motion of the head begins. It is

also worth noting that the muscles may not reach peak activity before this phase ends. If the

muscles never reach peak activity, the risk for injury to the muscles goes down. Factors

including crash severity and horizontal distance between the headrest and the back of the head

can significantly alter the amount of time and the risk of injury during this phase. The angle of

the seat back is directly related to the horizontal distance between the back of the head and the

headrest. More specifically, as the angle of inclination increases so does the horizontal distance.

Therefore, as the angle of the seat increases, the time before contact with the headrest also

increases.









The third phase of the whiplash motion, or the torso recovery and forward head

acceleration phase also lasts approximately 100 ms.3'6'7 During this phase, the head and neck

undergo flexion and the torso and the seat back begin to return to their pre-impact positions. The

torso achieves a velocity that exceeds the velocity of the vehicle, thus creating the forward

motion of the torso (Figure 2-1D).3'6 However, the velocity of the head is significantly higher

than the velocity of the vehicle and the acceleration is usually two to three times that of the

vehicle.3'7-12 This relative increase of velocity and acceleration creates a flexion motion of the

neck. During this phase, the muscle activity of the neck continues, however the posterior neck

muscles are placed under more stress due to their resistance of the forward flexion motion. The

most involved muscle is the trapezius.3'6'7

The fourth phase also lasts approximately 100 ms,3'6'7 and is called the head deceleration

phase.3 In this phase, the head finishes the forward flexion motion while the musculature

decelerates the head, and the head begins to return to the pre-impact position.3'6 During this

phase, the upper cervical vertebrae are in extension while the lower cervical vertebrae are in

flexion (Figure 2-1E).6 If the impact is severe enough, the head will be stopped by the chest

through contact with the anterior portion of the mandible, or chin. Otherwise, the posterior

musculature of the neck will be primarily responsible for the end of the forward movement. If

injuries are present in the posterior musculature of the neck, it is due to phases three and four.

Finally, the torso continues its return to its pre-impact position.3'6

The fifth and final phase, or the restitution phase,3 consists of the body and head finishing

their progression to the pre-impact position and is characterized by the ceasing of muscle activity

in the neck (Figure 2-1F). This phase is generally the longest phase lasting 150 to 200 ms.3'6'13









This five phase motion is representative of all whiplash injuries, however the severity of

these injuries can change due to the characteristics and circumstances related to the individual

crash. Some of these factors include change in velocity and occupant orientation. The most

significant factor concerning occupant orientation is the angle of the head relative to the torso.7

In the current study, this angle will change based on the angle of the setback. As the angle of

the setback increases, the angle of flexion between the neck and the head must increase in order

to maintain a head position that is perpendicular to the surface of the road.

Injury Mechanism

The motion previously described is capable of causing a variety of injuries. However,

separate injuries occur during the different phases of motion of the head and neck. During

extension, compressive forces are applied to the posterior structures and tensile forces are

applied to the anterior structures. The most common anterior structures involved during

extension are the esophagus, anterior longitudinal ligament, anterior cervical muscles, the

odontoid process of the second cervical vertebrae, and the intervertebral discs. The posterior

structures at risk during extension are the facet joints and the spinous processes of the vertebrae.2

During normal extension, the structures of the vertebrae and the muscles of the anterior neck are

within their physiological and anatomical limits. In this case, no injury will occur. However,

during low velocity rear-end collisions, these structures may be subjected to forces which exceed

healthy limits. In this scenario, the facet joints between the superior articular process of the

lower vertebra and the inferior articular process of the higher vertebra are the first anatomical

structures to be stressed, thus they become the point about which the vertebrae rotate. If the

forces of rotation become too great for the facet joints to withstand, one of three things is

possible. First, the facet joints could experience a crush fracture. Second, the spinous processes

of the vertebrae could come in contact due to the forced extension and fracture as a result.









Finally, the anterior structures of the vertebrae and neck could stretch beyond their elastic limit

or the vertebral body could fracture. These anterior structures include muscles, the anterior

longitudinal ligament of the cervical vertebrae, and the intervertebral discs.2

During the flexion phase the opposite occurs. Compressive forces are now applied to the

anterior anatomy and tensile forces are applied to the posterior anatomy of the cervical spine.

The main structures involved in this phase are the intervertebral discs and vertebral bodies in the

anterior portion and the facet joint capsules along with the posterior neck muscles in the

posterior portion. The most common injuries during the flexion phase are ruptured discs,

vertebral body fractures, and muscle and ligament strains.2

The final and least likely source of injury during low velocity rear-end collisions are

shear forces resulting from the horizontal motion of the body during the crash. Assuming a near-

vertical position of the spine before the collision, horizontal forces will be transmitted parallel to

the intervertebral discs. These forces can cause injury to the facet joint capsules and the anterior

portion of the intervertebral discs. Based on the anatomy of the cervical vertebrae, the facet joint

capsules experience compression from shear forces and the anterior portion of the intervertebral

discs experiences a tensile force due to the backward motion of the superior vertebra.2

Specific Injuries Caused by Whiplash and Associated Symptoms

As previously mentioned, the body parts most affected by whiplash injuries are the

musculature of the neck and cervical vertebrae and surrounding structures. Injuries involving

these structures can either be short lived or chronic, and are generally classified as WAD.14

However, because these injuries are non-fatal, no formal pathological studies can be done to

determine exact causes or locations of injury. As medical technology becomes more advanced,

accuracy of diagnosis is becoming better, but these injuries will probably never be as well

understood as more serious, fatal injuries. To date, many types of studies have been performed









to better understand these injuries; however each method has its own limitations. These methods

include cadaver experiments, animal experiments, and radiographic studies. Cadaver

experiments utilize the same anatomy, but do not demonstrate the same muscular response as a

live human being. Animal experiments provide a live subject, but differences in anatomy and

body size provide limiting factors. Finally, radiographic studies show injuries in live human

beings, but they do not allow for first-hand examination of the affected structures. Even if the

patient requires surgery for the injury sustained, it is generally much later and the anatomy

during surgery may be different than it was directly after the crash.2

Generally, injuries to the musculature of the neck are short lived, while injuries to

intervertebral discs, facet joints, and cervical ligaments usually cause chronic neck pain. Injuries

to the facet joints, including fractures and tears of the joint capsules, are fairly common and can

cause chronic pain. Many times, this pain is due to a missed diagnosis resulting from an inability

or difficulty to see the injury on a typical X-ray or MRI. Disc injuries are also common, but are

easier to diagnose, as they are generally more common in the medical community and are easier

to detect from an MRI. The two most common varieties of disc injuries are a separation of the

disc from the vertebra and an anterior rupture due to compression of the posterior spine during

extension.2 Muscle injuries, specifically tears and strains, are the most common injuries suffered

by individuals with whiplash. This is due to the sequence of events of a whiplash injury. The

muscles act as a protective mechanism to the other structures that could potentially be involved.

They are the first structure that resists the motion of the head, thus they undergo the greatest

stress. Muscles will undergo mild injury in order to keep the spine aligned and free of injury. It

is only when the muscles can no longer withstand the acceleration and resultant forces of the

head that the other structures become susceptible to injury.6 Muscle injuries, while being the









most common, are also the shortest lasting, with a maximum healing time of two to three weeks,

while many times resolving in just a few days.2 The final major structures contributing to

whiplash injuries are the ligaments, specifically the anterior longitudinal ligament. Anatomical

studies have shown that the anterior longitudinal ligament and the annulus fibrosis of the anterior

intervertebral discs in the cervical vertebrae merge together, thus anterior longitudinal ligament

injuries and disc injuries are often associated together. Injuries to this ligament occur only

during the extension phase of the whiplash motion, and are characterized by a partial tear or

complete rupture of the ligament.2 In summary, although there are other sources of injury during

whiplash, the vast majority of whiplash injuries are directly related to the facet joints,

intervertebral discs, and anterior ligaments of the cervical vertebrae.

With these very specific injuries come various symptoms. Symptoms of WAD include

pain in the neck or shoulder region, dizziness, headaches, blurred vision, concentration and

memory disturbances, and paraesthesia, or tingling and numbness in the hands.2'14-16 Neck pain

is the most reported complaint among individuals who report whiplash injuries. This pain is

reported in the anterior and posterior portion of the neck, although posterior pain is the dominant

complaint. This pain can come in several forms. The two most common forms are dull and

aching and sharp pain. Both forms are exacerbated with movement and many times movement is

restricted due to stiffness.2 Previous studies using similar speeds to the current study have shown

that neck pain, if any is present, has resolved within four days.6'7'12'13'17-19 Due to the complexity

and multitude of possible causes of injury, the exact correlation between types of neck pain and

type of crash is not completely understood. The second most frequently reported symptom

reported is headaches. The most likely causes of these headaches are the upper three cervical

nerves originating from the first, second, and third cervical vertebrae. Afferents from these three









nerves terminate in the cervical portion of the trigeminal nucleus, located in the caudal region.

Because the ophthalmic portion of the trigeminal nucleus is also in the caudal region, pain from

C1-C3 is usually referred to the orbital and temporal regions. This referred pain is the most

likely cause for headaches related to the whiplash motion.2 Previous studies at or near the speed

used in the current study show that headaches, if present, resolved within two days.4'19 Other

headaches that could originate would result from concussion or intracranial hemorrhage,

however during a low velocity collision these types of injuries are extremely unlikely.

Paraesthesia, another symptom reported by whiplash patients, is caused by compression of the

nerves of the brachial plexus by the surrounding anatomical structures including muscles. The

other symptoms relating to whiplash, including dizziness, blurred vision, and concentration and

memory disturbances, have not been sufficiently explained in the current research.2

Prevalence of Whiplash Injuries in Society

Whiplash injuries, although minor in severity, are a major health problem around the

world and they create a huge economic burden to insurance companies, hospitals, and the

patients affected by these injuries. In general, whiplash injuries are most likely to occur when the

vehicle is involved in a rear-end impact with speeds less than 12.5 mph.4'16'20 The injuries are

usually classified as minor on the abbreviated injury scale, otherwise known as AIS 1 injuries.

However, the frequency of permanent disability is about 10%. This is extremely high when

compared to other AIS 1 classified injuries, which have a permanent disability rate of only

0.1%.1 Thus, injuries related to whiplash are 100 times more likely to produce permanent

disability than other injuries of similar severity.

In addition to having a relatively high rate of disability, these injuries are also very

common, as neck strains and sprains associated with whiplash are the most serious injuries

reported by 40 % of automobile accident claimants in the United States.11 This percentage









coincides well with statistics from two studies in Japan during the years 1996 and 1997.

Watanabe et al. state that 44.0 % of 547,654 injuries suffered during a car accident in 1996 were

neck injuries resulting from a rear-end impact and 44.7% of 563,121 injuries from 1997 were

neck injuries resulting from a rear-end impact.21 In Western countries, about 25% of all people

reporting an injury related to whiplash develop a chronic condition and 20% of those people

suffer serious pain.5 Finally, in 2002 Croft et al. estimated that the cost associated with whiplash

injuries exceeds $19 billion every year, which is sure to be much higher currently.22 All of these

statistics show that there is a great need to better comprehend the causes of these injuries and to

reduce the risk of whiplash injuries throughout the world.

Automobile Characteristics Contributing to Injury

Seat Angle

The angle of the setback is an important controllable factor related to the motion of the

neck and the forces felt by the muscles of the posterior and anterior portions of the neck;

however it has received little attention when discussing whiplash research. Ergonomics of

products such as office chairs have been studied extensively, and there have been several studies

on the ergonomics of automobile seats, yet an optimal position to reduce the risk of whiplash

injury for a driver in an automobile has been more or less ignored, thus there is extremely limited

research in this area.17 The previous studies in automobile seat ergonomics have shown a

minimal myoelectric activity of the anterior and posterior muscles of the neck at a seat back

inclination of 120.17,23 However, these studies had no relation to whiplash injuries.

The inclination of the seat back in an automobile affects the loads applied to the

ligaments and the intervertebral discs of the cervical spine.7 When the setback angle is altered,

the angle between the neck and the torso must change, assuming that the driver's head is always

perpendicular with the surface of the road. The change in the angle between the neck and the









torso may be an important factor contributing to the differences in force felt by the anatomical

structures of the neck. When the seat is reclined past 900, the neck is forced into flexion,

subsequently creating a larger angle through which the head must move, and possibly creating a

larger end velocity of the third phase of the whiplash motion. Therefore, when the muscles

activate to decelerate the head during this motion, it is also possible that the inertial forces

exerted by the muscles of the neck are greater from a flexed position when compared to an

upright position. If this increase in force exceeds the injury threshold, the increase in seat back

angle would create injury where there would be no injury from a more upright-seated position.

In addition, if the seat is more upright, the distance between the back of the head and the headrest

reduces. Therefore, the time between backward cervical rotation and contact between the head

and headrest will be reduced. This topic will be discussed further in a later section.

The final factor that is affected by the position of the setback is an aforementioned

motion referred to as ramping up. This motion is characterized by an upward movement of the

body along the setback during a rear-end collision. If the motion is significant enough, the head

will move above the headrest, thus eliminating the effectiveness of the headrest and increasing

the risk of injury due to hyperextension. However, having a more upright seat position decreases

this motion and should also decrease the risk of pain or injury. The variable manipulated in the

present study was the angle of the seat back and how it contributed to the acceleration of the

head during the whiplash motion and the pain felt in the musculature of the neck.

Headrest Function and Position

The headrest of a car seat has been proven to be effective in the reduction of injuries

during a low velocity rear-end collision when used in the correct manner.1,24-26 The primary

function of the head restraint is to limit the amount of rearward motion, or extension, that the

neck undergoes during a rear-end collision. If used properly, the head restraint is designed to









terminate the head motion before hyperextension of the neck occurs. During hyperextension the

more serious injuries such as intervertebral disc rupture, anterior longitudinal ligament rupture,

and vertebral fractures occur. Although the headrest should eliminate these types of injuries, it is

still very possible to have less severe soft tissue injuries such as muscle strains, even if the

headrest is used properly. Hyperextension is one of the leading causes of injury to the neck, thus

if the head restraint is not used properly the likelihood of injury increases.27'28

Head restraint height is the only adjustable variable in the majority of modem head

restraints. It has been reported that a minimum of 27.5 inches from the seat to the top of the

headrest should be present to reduce injury, and the top of the headrest should be at least as high

as the vertical midpoint of the head.24'26 In addition, Nygren et al. have shown that complaints

of whiplash injuries nearly doubled when occupants reported a low headrest position instead of a

high headrest position.29 Additionally, 83% of drivers and passengers do not adjust their headrest

to the proper height.9 In order to help prevent injuries during this study, the headrest will be

placed in the highest position allowed by the structure of the car seat.

The final factor related to the headrest that contributes to the forces felt by the head and

neck is the horizontal headrest distance, defined as the distance from the occipital protuberance

of the head to the front of the headrest. While the headrest height stays constant, the change in

seat back angle will also create a change in horizontal headrest distance, which in turn will cause

a larger degree of neck flexion and a greater angular displacement of the head during the

whiplash motion. Ideally, the gap between the occipital protuberance and the headrest should be

no greater than half of the anteroposterior diameter of the head.26 Many studies have shown that

the greater this distance is, the greater the demands are on the muscles of the neck. 1,14,19,22,24,26,27

However, none of these studies have related this phenomenon to the angle of the setback.









Seat Belt

Previous studies have shown that an anthropomorphic dummy was adequately retained

by the seat in rear-end impacts up to 14.3 mph.30'31 In order for a seat belt to be required and

effective, the forward excursion of the torso must be large enough to lock the seatbelt. In the

current study, the movement of the torso would not have caused this to happen. Therefore, it

was determined that a seat belt would have little to no effect on the kinematics of the head or the

torso during the collision.

Crash Factors Affecting Injury

Comparison of Body Kinematics during Rear-End Collisions and Frontal Impacts

The motion of the body during rear end and frontal impacts has similarities, however the

motion during rear end impacts is responsible for the vast majority of recorded whiplash

injuries.16,20,21 Frontal impacts are defined as having a direction of force between eleven o'clock

and one o'clock with direct contact to the front of the car. During frontal impacts, the accepted

motion of whiplash is not present, thus the injuries are generally less severe and less frequent.

The first motion of the neck during a frontal impact is flexion, which is followed by a less severe

extension motion. Furthermore, at a velocity of five mph, the likelihood of a hyperextension

injury becomes very small. This is due to the dissipation of force from the posterior musculature

of the neck and possible contact between the sternum and chin. As the first motion is the most

severe in terms of acceleration, extension injuries during frontal impacts occur with much less

regularity and generally occur in higher velocity crashes.32 This is opposite to the motion that

takes place during a rear end collision. In this type of collision, extension of the neck is the first

motion and it is followed by flexion.3'6'7 Because the first motion is more severe than the second,

the anatomical structures involved with hyperextension injuries become much more susceptible,

and because hyperextension injuries such as ligament ruptures, herniated discs, and vertebral









fractures are more serious than flexion injuries, it is fair to conclude that low velocity rear end

collisions create a much higher probability for whiplash injuries than low velocity frontal

impacts.

Relationship Between Selected Velocity and Injury Tolerance

Most WAD injuries occur when there is a change in velocity between 6.2 mph and 12.5

mph.27 In previous studies testing human subjects at a velocity of five mph, no subject

experienced WAD symptoms lasting more than three days, and there was no recurrence of pain

at any point in the future. Primary complaints consisted of muscle pain, headache, and other

cervical symptoms.4'12,13,16 In addition, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the primary

government crash test agency, uses a velocity of five mph to test vehicles for resistance to low

speed crash damage. Therefore, in order to protect the participants as much as possible, five

mph was chosen as the test velocity. The second reason for selecting five mph as the velocity

was to ensure that the defined motion of whiplash occurred. If the change in velocity of the

vehicle were too low, the forces required for the head to undergo the five phases of motion

previously described would not be sufficient. Previously, West et al. tested at three mph or less

and reported that the rearward displacement of the head following impact was not large enough

to classify the motion as a typical whiplash movement.12

Influence of Occupant Awareness during a Crash

Occupant awareness, or the anticipation of an impending impact, not only changes the

motion of the head and neck during a rear-end collision, but it can also change the likelihood of a

whiplash injury. The main factors that create awareness during a rear-end collision are the

screeching of the tires from the vehicle behind and seeing the car behind in the mirrors of the

vehicle. The most common reaction of drivers when they anticipate a collision is to contract the

muscles in the neck. Participants in studies who were instructed to anticipate the impending









crash and tense their neck muscles prior to impact have reported less severe pain and injuries and

state that the crash seemed less severe when comparing it to a crash with the same change in

velocity and an unaware state.15,33,38 Contraction of the muscles prior to impact creates an ability

to resist extension beyond normal physiological and anatomical limits and consequently reduces

the incidence of hyperextension injuries and symptoms.7'10'15'33-38 However, muscle tension

before impact could also contribute to muscle strain injuries if the muscles involved eccentrically

contract to resist head motion that has already begun.6'39-41 The kinematics of the whiplash

motion are also changed when the occupant is aware. Kumar et al. state that the initial

acceleration of the head in aware conditions was delayed by 25-40 ms.33 This delay is due to the

resistance of the backward rotation created by the anterior musculature of the neck. This will

create a decrease in the extension of the neck by approximately 30-40% when compared to a

relaxed state.

Conversely, if the subject is in a relaxed state prior to impact, the muscles of the neck do

not affect the head-neck-torso kinematics during a rear-end impact and the motion is as described

previously. Because of the muscle activity onset delay, much or all of the movement in the

extension phase of the whiplash motion is already completed before the anterior muscles,

specifically the SCM, are maximally activated.

Demographics of Selected Participants

Human Subjects Compared to Anthropomorphic Dummies and Cadavers

In many studies involving automobile crashes, anthropomorphic dummies, or crash test

dummies, are used for safety reasons. However, these tests are generally at much higher speeds

than five mph. In addition, anthropomorphic dummies are designed to replicate the motions

observed in a human during high-speed crashes and they do not exhibit the correct response

when subjected to a low velocity rear-end collision.4'11'16'18 More specifically, the complicated









intersegmental dynamics of the neck, including vertebral interaction and muscle responses,

cannot be reproduced in anthropomorphic dummies.1l The final reason these dummies cannot be

used for this type of research is the lack of a pain response. When studying whiplash, analysis of

pain is an extremely vital part in analyzing what has happened to the anatomical structures

affected.4 Because the dummies are unable to give verbal feedback about pain, injuries

associated with whiplash are very difficult to study when using dummies as subjects.

Another substitute for in vivo human testing has been the use of human cadavers. This

method also has very serious drawbacks when applied to low velocity impacts. As opposed to

high-speed research where cause of death is usually the desired information, low speed impacts

present much more subtle and complicated questions such as the role of muscle activity in the

neck in preventing injury.4'11 Obviously, a cadaver has no muscle response and therefore cannot

produce accurate results.

Likelihood of Injury in Males and Females

Although whiplash injuries affect both males and females, it has been widely reported

that women are more susceptible to whiplash injuries, and the associated WAD symptoms last

for a longer period of time when compared to men.7'1114,24'26'42-55 In fact, women have a 40%

higher risk than men of sustaining these injuries.26 This increased risk can be attributed to

several factors. The first factor is a greater ratio of head mass to neck circumference. This ratio,

represented by the cube of the head circumference divided by the square of the neck

circumference, places a greater demand on the muscles of the neck for female occupants.4 The

increased muscular demand causes the incidence of whiplash injuries to increase. The next

factor contributing to the higher incidence of injury in females is the difference in the alignment

of the cervical spine between male and female occupants. The female spine is more prone to

kyphosis, or a curvature of the upper spine.7 Because the spine is not aligned in a straight









position, the muscles of the neck are already under more strain than they would be in men.

When placed in a situation such as a rear-end collision, the muscles could be fatigued and less

able to perform the demands necessary to prevent hyperextension. The final factor contributing

to the higher risk in females is muscle strength. On average, females have weaker muscles in the

neck region than men.25 When combining this with the higher relative head mass, injuries are

much more likely to happen. Because the muscles cannot resist the rearward rotation as well as

men, the horizontal acceleration of the head is also higher in women.11'55

Effect of Age on Injury Susceptibility

The effect of the whiplash motion on the body changes as an individual ages. Not only

are elderly people less physically prepared to withstand the forces created by the whiplash

motion, but the injuries suffered are generally more severe, last longer, and have increased

symptoms.2,14,51 As people age, more effort is required to maintain muscle mass. If muscle mass

is not maintained, the likelihood of severe injury increases because the muscles can no longer

protect the ligaments and vertebrae. In addition, weakening of the bones, or osteoporosis, can

occur as one ages. If the cervical vertebrae are weakened, when they are placed under the

stresses caused by whiplash, they are more likely to fracture.






















A B C

4-










D E F

Figure 2-1. Stages of whiplash motion. Arrows indicate the direction of motion of the head and
seat back. A) Pre-impact position. B) End of phase one. C) End of phase two. D)
End of phase three. E) End of phase four. F) End of phase five.









CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants

Ten participants were tested. All participants were males between the ages of 18 and 35.

Participants were recruited from the student population of the University of Florida. Each

participant was required to read and sign an informed consent agreement approved by the

Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida prior to participation. In addition, each

participant was required to fill out a medical health questionnaire (Appendix A). Each

participant was involved in three testing sessions, spaced at least two weeks apart in order to rule

out any potential discomfort from the previous session. During each testing session, each

participant was subjected to three trials that involved one rear-end impact per trial at a velocity of

five mph. The only difference between testing sessions was the angle of the seat back.

Exclusion criteria included female gender, previous spinal injury, history of severe headaches or

migraines, current injuries to the neck or back, previous whiplash injuries, previous diagnosis of

a herniated disc or any other disc injury, and history of dizziness.

Experimental Apparatus

Ramp

In order to simulate a low velocity rear end collision each participant sat on a car seat

mounted to a rolling platform (Figure 3-1) that was released and allowed to roll backwards down

a wooden ramp until colliding with a fixed wooden barrier (Figure 3-2). The ramp was inclined

at 100 from horizontal and was 4.6 m (15 ft) long. The height of the ramp was 0.8 m (2.6 ft). In

addition, there was a flat 2.44 m (8 ft) long segment attached to the bottom of the ramp that

served as a final runway for the seat (Figure 3-2). The ramp was constructed from wooden

beams (2 in x 4 in) to create the framework and 1.9 cm (3/4 in) plywood to create the upper









rolling surface. On the surface of the ramp, there were 1.9 cm (3/4 in) tall rails that served to

keep the platform for the seat securely in place while it traveled down the ramp. In addition,

there were 7.6 cm (3 in) tall guards attached to each rail in order to provide an extra level of

safety (Figure 3-3). The ramp was comprised of two segments. The final 2.44 m (8 ft) section of

the ramp was held in place with four steel cables attached to the floor in order to prevent

rearward movement of the ramp during impact. At the end of the flat segment was an

immovable stopping apparatus, consisting of a wooden barrier (Figure 3-2).

Seat Platform

The car seat, extracted from a 2001 Toyota Corolla, was securely bolted to a platform that

measured 0.9144 m (3 ft) wide by 0.9144 m (3 ft) long by 0.305 m (1 ft) deep. There was also

an extension on the platform so the participants could rest their feet (Figure 3-1). The extension

was the same height relative to the seat as the floor of an automobile. The platform utilized two

rows of four Rollerblade 76 mm wheels with SG5 bearings (Nordica, Treviso, Italy), placed on

the outside of the platform (Figure 3-1). In addition, there was an interior compartment that

allowed for an addition of weight to the platform. This functioned to lower the center of gravity

of the platform and prevent backward rotation upon impact. The compartment also allowed the

testers to normalize the weight of the platform across subjects.

Instrumentation

A tri-axial accelerometer (Model CXL10GP3, Crossbow, San Jose, CA) was used to

capture acceleration measurements of the head. The accelerometer was connected to EVa Real-

Time software (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, California). All acceleration data was

sampled at 1000 Hz. Data was exported into Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Microsoft, Redmond,

WA) for reduction. Statistica version 5 (Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) was used for statistical

analyses.









Procedure

The experimental procedures were the same for all participants and all trials took place in

the Biomechanics Lab in the College of Health and Human Performance at the University of

Florida. Before the participant arrived, the seat back was set to the appropriate angle. The three

angles that were used in this study were 100, 115, and 1300 from horizontal, in that order. The

participants were not told which angle was being tested. Only one angle was tested per day.

After signing the informed consent form and filling out the medical health questionnaire, the

participant was weighed. The forms were only filled out prior to the first visit, however the

participant was weighed during each visit. Next, the participant was fitted with the

accelerometer that was securely fastened to a mouthpiece (Figure 3-4). In order to normalize the

weight of the platform and the test participant, weight was added to the compartment below the

seat until the combined weight of the participant, rolling platform, and added weight reached

113.6 kg (250 lbs). This constant weight helped to ensure that each trial was as close to five mph

as possible. The proper release point that produced the desired speed was determined during

pilot testing using motion analysis software.

Each participant was then instructed to sit in the seat at the top of the ramp while looking

straight ahead keeping his head parallel with the ramp's surface and his arms relaxed on his lap

throughout the trial. The participant was told to remain relaxed throughout the trial, meaning

that he would not tense his muscles before impact. The participant was also instructed to keep

his scapulas against the seat. This served to normalize the seating position for all participants.

During all trials, the headrest was in the highest position to decrease the chance of neck

hyperextension. Upon verification that the participant is ready, the rolling platform was released

from the pre-determined point and the seat began to move down the ramp. After impact with the

fixed wooden barrier, the platform came to rest. Throughout the trial, acceleration data was









recorded. Three trials were performed during each testing session. Finally, a follow-up phone

call was made at one day, three days, one week, and two weeks post-test. These calls served to

monitor the participant's health and to quantify soreness, if present, on a graded scale. The pain

scale appears in Appendix B56. In the two subsequent sessions, the data collection method was

the same, however the angle of the seat was changed. The data was analyzed after each session.

Data Analysis

Acceleration of the Head

Acceleration of the head was calculated in g's, where one g equals an acceleration of 9.81

m/s2, the acceleration on gravity. The peak acceleration in the anterior-posterior and vertical

directions was recorded and the resultant acceleration was calculated. The third direction was

ignored due to the minimal motion in the lateral direction during the whiplash motion.6'19 Initial

output from eVart 4.3 Motion Analysis Software was measured in millivolts. This raw data was

exported to Microsoft Excel 2003 and graphed. The graph was used to find peak acceleration in

volts. A sample graph has been provided (Figure 3-5). The baseline voltage was then subtracted

from the peak voltage in order to quantify the true peak acceleration. After finding this peak

acceleration in volts, a conversion factor supplied by Crossbow allowed for a conversion from

volts to g's. The conversion factors for horizontal and vertical acceleration were 0.098 and 0.101

volts per one g, respectively. Peak horizontal acceleration measured in g's (a(g)) was calculated

using Equation 3-1:

a(g) = (voltagemax(V) voltagebaseline(V)) / 0.098 (3-1)

Peak vertical acceleration was calculated using equation 3-2:

a(g) = (voltagemax(V) voltagebaseline(V)) / 0.101 (3-2)

This process was repeated for each trial completed. The peak mean horizontal and vertical

accelerations for each seat angle were calculated. In addition, the resultant peak accelerations









were calculated and averaged for each seat angle. Finally, one trial was selected for time-motion

analysis. During this process, key moments were picked from the trial and the resultant

acceleration, magnitude and direction, were plotted on a graph. This graph shows the severity

and direction of acceleration throughout the trial.

Pain Scale

Participants rated their pain one day, three days, one week, and two weeks post-test. This

process was completed for each of the three test sessions. Data was written into Microsoft Excel.

Mean pain ratings were calculated for each time interval at each seat angle.

Statistical Analysis

Acceleration of the Head

A repeated measures one-way ANOVA with three levels was used to determine if there

was any significant difference in the mean peak acceleration of the head across seat angle. This

was done for the horizontal, vertical, and resultant acceleration values. A traditional level of

significance was used (a = 0.05). Tukey HSD post hoc analyses were performed when

necessary.

Pain Scale

A repeated measures two-way ANOVA (3:seat angle x 4:time interval) was used to

determine if there was a significant pain difference among the three seat angles and as time

passed post testing. A traditional level of significance was used (a = 0.05). In addition, Tukey

HSD post hoc analyses were performed when necessary.

















0.457 meters


0.914 meters


Figure 3-1. Automobile seat mounted on a rolling platform.


SI0.61 meters


2 44 meters -4.57 meters


Figure 3-2. Ramp and stopping apparatus.


jIL a;* 0.019 meters


I 0.076 meters
I1J 0.019 meters


Figure 3-3. Guard rails on ramp.


0.79
meters


=


l



















Figure 3-4. Accelerometer and mouthpiece.






Sample Horizontal Acceleration


1300

1200

1100

1000


900


1001


2001


3001


4001


5001


6001


Time elapsed (ms)


Figure 3-5. Sample horizontal acceleration graph- the vertical axis is measured in millivolts and
the horizontal axis is measured in milliseconds.


s"









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Participants

Nine of the ten participants completed testing at all three seat angles. The horizontal

acceleration data for the third trial at 1300 for participant five were not recorded due to

equipment errors. Mass, height, and age were recorded for all ten participants (Table 4-1).

Horizontal Acceleration

Following testing, mean peak acceleration values for all three seat angles were calculated

(Figure 4-1). A repeated measures one way ANOVA revealed a significant difference when

comparing peak horizontal acceleration across the three levels of seat angle (F (2,18) = 27.39, p

= 0.000003). Tukey's HSD post-hoc procedure indicated that horizontal acceleration was

decreased for the 130 seat position when compared to the 1000 position (p = 0.000151). In

addition, the horizontal acceleration was also decreased for the 1150 seat position when

compared to the 1000 position (p = 0.000552).

Vertical Acceleration

The same statistical methods previously mentioned were used for the vertical acceleration

data. Mean peak acceleration values can be found in Figure 4-1. No differences in vertical

acceleration across seat position were detected (F (2,18) = 3.48, p = 0.0529).

Resultant Acceleration

Resultant accelerations were calculated using the horizontal and vertical components and

applying the Pythagorean theorem. Mean peak resultant acceleration values for each seat angle

were then calculated (Figure 4-1). Statistical analyses were the same as described for the

horizontal and vertical accelerations. Resultant acceleration varied with seat position (F (2,18) =

4.51, p = 0.0258). The mean acceleration values decreased as the seat angle increased









(Figure 4-1). Tukey's post hoc analysis revealed that the 1000 seat position had a higher

resultant acceleration than the 1300 position (p = 0.0425). The 1150 seat position also had a

significantly higher resultant acceleration than the 1300 seat position (p = 0.0488).

Time Motion Analysis

A time motion analysis was performed on one selected trial (Participant 3, 1000, trial 1).

The horizontal and vertical acceleration graphs corresponding to this trial can be found in Figure

4-2. To create the time motion analysis, seven significant points of motion were chosen and the

magnitude and direction of the resultant acceleration were calculated and plotted (Figure 4-3).

Horizontal and vertical components of the resultant accelerations can be found in Table 4-2.

There are no data points for the first phase because there is no movement of the head during the

first phase, as defined by the previously described five phase whiplash motion. The first two

points selected were 50 and 75 ms after the initial horizontal acceleration of the head,

respectively, and were during the middle portion of the second phase of motion. Both of these

points have a forward and downward acceleration. In addition, the acceleration is increasing in

both directions across the 25 ms time span. At 100 ms, peak horizontal acceleration occurs and

phase two is complete. During phase three, the horizontal acceleration is beginning to approach

zero g's at 125 ms. 153 ms after impact, the horizontal acceleration has changed from forward to

backward. Phase three is over 180 ms after impact and the participant is at the peak horizontal

acceleration for phase three. This acceleration is directed backwards and down. Finally, at 269

ms, the peak horizontal acceleration during phase four was recorded. The direction of the

acceleration is forward and up. At this point in the motion, all relevant accelerations have been

completed. Due to this, the fifth phase, or restitution phase, was not included.









Pain Scale

The participants subjectively reported pain at four different time intervals that included

one day, three days, one week, and two weeks post-test (Appendix B). All ten participants

completed the pain ratings at all time intervals for all three seat positions. There were no ratings

above a one (no pain) for the last two time intervals. Therefore, only the pain ratings given at

one day and three days post-test were used in the statistical analysis. The highest pain rating

given by any participant was a four (Participant 7, 1300, 1 day post-test) and no subject had any

long term effects from the impacts. Generally speaking, the mean pain rating increased as the

seat angle increased (Figure 4-4). In addition, when comparing pain ratings from day one to day

three, pain decreased as time passed for the 1150 and 130 seat positions while it stayed the same

for the 1000 seat position (Figure 4-5). Statistical analysis revealed significance when

comparing overall pain ratings across time (F (1,9) = 6.43, p = 0.032), with pain decreasing from

one day post-test to three days post-test. Pain ratings also varied with seat position (F (2,18) =

6.55, p = 0.0073). Tukey's HSD post hoc test revealed that there were significant increases

among the mean pain ratings when comparing the 1300 seat position to the 1000 position (p =

0.0076) and when comparing the 130 position to the 115 position (p = 0.041), with the 130

position having the higher pain rating in both cases (Figure 4-4). A time x seat position

interaction was also detected (F (2,18) = 6.28, p = 0.0085). Tukey's HSD post hoc test

demonstrated that only the 1300 seat position showed significance when comparing the pain

ratings across both time intervals (Figure 4-5), meaning that pain ratings were significantly

worse one day post test when compared to three days post test for that seat position

(p = 0.000094).











Table 4-1. Participant characteristics
Participant Age (years)


21
21
21
25
23
22
22
19
28
22
22.40 2.37


Mean SD


Height (m)
1.85
1.83
1.78
1.83
1.75
1.80
1.78
1.75
1.78
1.75
1.79 0.035


Mass (kg)
90.7
70.3
76.2
96.2
85.7
78.0
102.5
69.4
84.4
65.8
81.92 11.51


Table 4-2. Acceleration data for time motion analysis
Time Phase of Horizontal Vertical Resultant
(ms) motion acceleration acceleration acceleration
(6) (6) (6)


Angle (o)


50 2 -1.1122 -0.3465 1.1649 17.3 below negative x-axis
75 2 -1.2755 -0.9406 1.5848 36.4 below negative x-axis
100 End of 2 -2.4490 1.1485 2.7049 25.1 above negative x-axis
125 3 -0.5306 1.9010 1.9737 74.4 above negative x-axis
153 3 0.0102 -0.3861 0.3862 88.5 below positive x-axis
180 End of 3 0.5816 -0.3564 0.6821 31.5 below positive x-axis
269 4 -0.3980 0.5644 0.6906 54.8 above negative x-axis
Note: For horizontal data, negative was defined as forward acceleration. For vertical data,
negative was defined as downward acceleration.











Mean Peak Acceleration


S2.5

0
2


< 15


1


0.5


0


Horizontal


Vertical


* 100 degrees
* 115 degrees
* 130 degrees


Resultant


Figure 4-1. Mean horizontal, vertical, and resultant acceleration for all angles. indicates a
significant difference between peak horizontal acceleration values when comparing
1000 and 1150 (p < 0.05). A indicates a significant difference between peak horizontal
acceleration values when comparing 1000 and 1300 (p < 0.05). # indicates a
significant difference between peak resultant acceleration values when comparing
1000 and 1300 (p < 0.05).








Horizotal and Vertical Acceleration


- Horizontal
- Vertical


1 301 601


901 1201 1501 1801 2101 2401


Time (ms)


Figure 4-2. Horizontal and vertical acceleration for participant three, 1000, trial one. For
horizontal acceleration, values above and below the baseline represent anterior and
posterior acceleration of the head, respectively. For vertical acceleration, values
above and below the baseline represent downward and upward acceleration,
respectively.


1250

1150

1050

950

850

750


P1~-


~"~.~Lbal










Time Motion Analysis


125 (1.974)

100 (2.705)___


269 (0.691)



I50(116 I5)
50 (1.165) ^^^ ^


2.5
2

1.5


S0.5
i O0

| -0.5
-1
-1.5


153 (0.386) 180 (0.682)
I


-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1


-0.5 0 0.5 1


Horizontal acceleration (g)

Figure 4-3. Time-motion analysis for participant three, 1000, trial one. The first number
represents time in milliseconds after impact. The number in parentheses is the
resultant acceleration value at that time.


75 (1.585)










Mean Pain Ratings


* 100 degrees
* 115 degrees
* 130 degrees


Seat Position


Figure 4-4. Mean pain ratings at each seat position. indicates a significant difference between
1000 and 130 (p < 0.05). # indicates a significant difference between 1150 and 130
(p < 0.05).


Mean Pain Rating vs. Seat Position and Time


100


-*- 1 day
post-test
- 3 days
post test


130


Seat Position (0)

Figure 4-5. Mean pain rating interaction with seat position and time. indicates a significant
difference between 1 day and 3 days post-test at a seat position of 1300 (p < 0.05).


2

1.5

1

0.5

0


*









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Horizontal Acceleration

In comparison to other studies at similar impact speeds, the peak horizontal accelerations

during this study were slightly lower.12,19 However, because there are no comparative data

regarding the kinematics of the head and the contribution of seat back angle to the acceleration of

the head, this portion of the discussion is intended to explain these novel data.

The data collected during this study suggest that altering the angle of the seat back can

create changes in the horizontal acceleration of the head during a low velocity rear-end collision.

This is shown by the decrease in mean acceleration values as the seat angle was increased

(Figure 4-1). When studying the kinematics of the head during a selected trial, the horizontal

portion of Figure 4-2 shows only one peak. This peak coincides with the larger of the two

vertical peaks and represents the maximum forward acceleration of the head while it is in contact

with the headrest. While the head does accelerate downwards after impact, evidenced by the

first vertical peak, it does not accelerate horizontally unless the musculature of the neck is

activated to resist the rearward motion. During this study, the seat was rolling backwards at

approximately five mph until impact. Upon impact the body continues to move horizontally at

that velocity without accelerating until it hits the headrest or until the muscles fire, whichever

comes first. This can be compared to a true rear-end collision where the car moves forward until

the seat interacts with a stationary body. This phenomenon explains why the vertical

acceleration begins just before the horizontal acceleration. The main difference between the

vertical and horizontal motions is that the head was already moving horizontally, but had no

initial velocity in the vertical direction, thus producing the kinematic differences. During the

analysis of this trial it can be estimated that the muscles fired approximately fifteen ms after









impact with the wooden barrier. Although there was no electromyographic data collected, the

initiation of the horizontal and vertical acceleration can be approximated from the time motion

analysis (Figure 4-2). This indicates that the participant was anticipating the impending impact,

as this delay is insufficient for a reflex response.7

When discussing differences in acceleration among seat positions, the horizontal

acceleration of the head should be determined by the time it takes for the stopping forces of the

muscles and headrest to arrest all horizontal motion, assuming the same Av of five mph

(acceleration = Av / At). Because the 1000 seat back angle creates less horizontal distance from

the back of the head to the headrest, when compared to a 1300 seat back angle, it is fair to

conclude that the time it takes for the head to make contact with the headrest is shorter. Because

of this, the muscles have less time to react and all or most of the forces created by the impact

must be dissipated by the headrest in a shorter time, thus creating higher peak acceleration

values. However, a higher peak acceleration value does not necessarily mean that there will be a

higher risk of WAD injuries. A key factor that determines injury is the mechanism used to

decelerate the head. The muscles and headrest both act to stop the motion of the head, but the

contributions of each cannot be calculated from the acceleration data collected during this study.

However, the contribution of pain in conjunction with the acceleration data may provide some

insight and will be discussed later.

Vertical Acceleration

The vertical acceleration data showed no significance when comparing peak acceleration

across the three seat positions. During the trial chosen for analysis, the temporal presentation of

the vertical acceleration was very different than the horizontal acceleration and was most likely

representative of the other data collected. According to Figure 4-2, the vertical acceleration









began fifteen ms before the horizontal acceleration. In addition, the vertical acceleration had two

peaks while the horizontal acceleration only had one true peak. The first, smaller peak in the

vertical acceleration represents the initial downward motion of the head after the setback has

pushed the torso forward and the cervical spine is forced into extension. The anterior neck

muscles are responsible for attempting to counteract the force of the impact. This peak is prior to

contact with the headrest. The net vertical acceleration during this time period is downward for

one primary reason. Although the anterior musculature of the neck is attempting to slow the

head down by producing an upward acceleration, the downward force created by the impact is

greater in magnitude, thus the overall acceleration is still downward. The second, larger peak

represents the net upward acceleration imparted by the combination of the headrest and the

continuing action of the anterior musculature. During this portion, the resultant upward force is

greater than the downward force remaining from the impact, thus the acceleration vector points

upward. This peak is larger because the headrest and muscles are providing resistant forces, as

opposed to just the muscles. However, although the second peak is larger, I believe the first peak

is where an injury is more likely to occur, due to the higher initial load on the muscles. Finally,

because there has been no significant difference found when comparing peak vertical

accelerations across the three seat positions, it can be concluded that vertical motion during

whiplash is not influenced by seat position. In comparison with other studies, peak vertical

accelerations in this study were slightly lower, with previous studies showing peak vertical

accelerations ranging from 2.4 to 3.0 g's.12,13

Resultant Acceleration

As shown by the data in Figure 4-1, the resultant acceleration of the head does change as

the angle of the seat back is altered. This difference may be attributed to the following. During

a rear-end collision, the head may undergo two sub-phases during the initial rearward rotation, or









phase two of the whiplash motion. The first sub-phase is prior to contact with the headrest and

the second is initiated with contact between the head and headrest and terminated when rearward

rotation ceases. What occurs during the first sub-phase may be crucial to the injury risk

encountered by the driver and the front row passenger. During this study, the overall Av was the

same for all trials. However, the final velocity before impact with the headrest, or the initial

velocity upon impact with the headrest, was most likely different across the seat positions. As

the head was moving backwards and downwards relative to the body, the 1300 seat angle could

have allowed the muscles to reach higher activity levels due to the increased horizontal distance

and time required, and thus would create a lower final velocity before impact when comparing to

the 1000 seat angle. The lower final velocity is simply due to the increased deceleration caused

by the muscle force. Because the initial velocity on impact with the headrest is lower at the 1300

seat angle, the deceleration created by the headrest will be reduced while the deceleration created

by the musculature is increased. Conversely, if the seat is in the 1000 position, the resultant peak

acceleration is higher, but the headrest contributes more retarding force and the muscles

contribute a lower retarding force. Therefore, in accordance with previous work, the headrest

should be as close to the back of the head as possible in order to avoid hyperextension injuries of

the neck. 1,14,19,22,24,26,27

Time Motion Analysis

The main function of the time motion analysis was to verify the motion of the head

throughout the whiplash motion during this study. As seen in Figure 4-3, the direction and

magnitude of acceleration was constantly changing throughout the motion. The first point

selected was 65 and 50 ms after initiation of the vertical and horizontal accelerations,

respectively, and occurred during phase two. At this time, the head had a forward acceleration of









1.11 g's in combination with a downward acceleration of 0.35 g's (Table 4-2). The anterior

musculature of the neck, specifically the SCM, was responsible for slowing the head down.

Although the net vertical acceleration was downwards, the musculature was acting to accelerate

the head upward, against the motion of the head, however the force of the impact was larger than

the muscle force. This combination created a net downward force and acceleration. The next

point of interest is at 87 ms after initiation of horizontal acceleration and is also in phase two. It

is at this moment that the head made initial contact with the headrest. Notable occurrences

include a transition from downward to upward vertical acceleration and a continuing increase in

the horizontal acceleration. The third major point during phase two was 100 ms after initiation

of the horizontal acceleration and represented the peak horizontal acceleration throughout the

entire trial. This point also represents the end of phase two. Perhaps the most important time

span during this phase was the 13 ms in which the head was in contact with the headrest. It was

during this short time that the head experienced the most severe g forces in all dimensions.

However, the headrest is primarily responsible for these high g forces, thus WAD injuries during

contact with the headrest are unlikely. In addition, the g forces are not high enough to cause

significant intracranial injury.

Phase three was characterized by far less severe g forces. The first notable point in phase

three occurs at 153 ms. Horizontal acceleration has just crossed zero g's and is now 0.01 g's in a

backward direction, meaning that the posterior musculature has been activated and is attempting

to terminate the forward motion of the head created by the rebound off of the headrest, thus

producing a backward acceleration. Vertical acceleration at this point is 0.3861 g's downward.

The peak horizontal acceleration occurred 180 ms after the initial horizontal acceleration, or 80









ms after phase three began and had a value of 0.5816 g's. It is also at this time that phase three

was completed.

The final point of interest occurs 269 ms after initial horizontal acceleration and is in

phase four. The head had passed its equilibrium, or upright, point and was forced into slight

extension. Peak horizontal acceleration was 0.40 g's forward and peak vertical acceleration was

0.56 g's upward.

Overall, the results of this time motion analysis were comparable to previous work done

by McConnell, et al.13 The impact speed of both trials was very similar, and the overall motion

of the head during this study seemed to follow the previously defined five stage motion

associated with whiplash.3'6'7

Pain

Using the pain data in conjunction with the horizontal and resultant acceleration data, one

can infer that the muscles were contributing more during the trials with the seat reclined to 130.

This is because there were significant differences in overall pain ratings when comparing 1000

with 130 and when comparing 1150 with 130 (Figure 4-4), with the higher pain rating means

corresponding to the higher seat angles. Therefore, the increased time allowed the muscle to

increase its contribution and spread the force more equally among the muscles and headrest,

creating pain in some participants, while decreasing the headrest's contribution. The pain data

also show that the 1300 seat position was the only position that demonstrated a significant

difference in pain from one day post-test to three days post-test, which would suggest a more

significant muscle injury and increased muscle contribution during the testing at 1300. Other

structures, such as the vertebrae, intervertebral discs, and ligaments are also at increased risk

when the seat is more reclined. If the muscles are unable to absorb the complete force of the









impact prior to contact with the headrest, the force will be transmitted to other anatomical

structures. The muscles will no longer be able to resist the extension motion of the cervical spine

and more serious hyperextension injuries become more likely.

Limitations

This project had limitations that should be addressed while interpreting the results and for

designing future studies. Due to injury risk, only males between the ages of 18 and 35 were

approved to participate by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida, thus it

cannot be assumed that the results apply to the whole population. Second, there was no plausible

way to ensure that the participants were relaxed prior to impact. Because the platform was

rolling backwards into a fixed barrier, the participant could predict when the impact would occur.

This is supported by the time motion analysis of the selected trial. There are several ways to

correct this in the future. Electromyographic recording devices for the musculature of the neck

could be used to determine exactly when the muscles fired relative to impact. In addition, the

barrier could move forward into a stationary seat platform with all visual and auditory cues

removed from the environment. This technique could be combined with random dummy trials,

or trials in which there is no contact between the barrier and the platform. Third, sample size is a

concern. A larger sample size would produce more reliable results. Fourth, only one seat model

was used. For better results, seats from all major car manufacturers could have been used. Fifth,

only three angles were tested during this study. To truly determine the best combination of

comfort and safety, seat positions in increments of 50 should be tested in further studies. Sixth,

the headrest was at the maximum height for all subjects. Due to differences in height among the

participants it cannot be assumed that all participants made contact with the same part of the

headrest. Finally, the apparatus could have been substituted with real automobiles to create a

true bumper to bumper impact.









Conclusions

The data collected during testing show that horizontal and resultant acceleration are

significantly altered when the orientation of the seat back is changed from 1000 to 1300. In

addition, the pain felt by the participants increases when comparing 1000 and 130 and when

comparing 1150 to 130. These results support the current trend in automobile manufacturing to

produce active head restraints. If the head restraint moves forward as the seat is reclined

backwards, it is possible to maintain the same horizontal distance from the back of the head to

the front of the headrest, thus eliminating much of the muscle force required to arrest the motion

of the head during a low velocity rear-end collision. However, much of the population does not

own an automobile with this capability. Therefore, it is recommended that a seat position of

1000 is used in order to minimize risk of injury from a rear-end collision when operating an

automobile. Finally, I believe that the previously defined five stage whiplash motion3'6'7 should

be modified to a six stage motion including the two sub-phases previously discussed. Although

the rearward rotation of the head is characteristic of both sub-phases, the injury risk and

decelerating mechanisms are different.









APPENDIX A
MEDICAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE

Subject Number:
Age: (must be between 18 and 35 to be eligible)
Height:
Weight:
Sex: M/ F

Please answer yes or no to questions #1-11. If you answer "yes" to any of the following
questions (1-7,10), you will not be eligible for this study. If you answered "no" to questions 8 or
9, you will not be eligible for this study.

1. Have you ever had a spinal injury of any kind?
2. Do you suffer from severe headaches or migraines?
3. Do you currently have any injury to your neck or back?
4. Have you ever had "whiplash" before?
5. Have you ever had a herniated disc or any other disc injury?
6. Do you suffer form dizziness?
7. Are you currently taking any pain medications?
8. Do you have a pain-free range of motion of your cervical spine?
9. Can you move your neck freely in all directions?
10. Do you suffer from any long standing neck pain?
11. Please list any other medical problems that you think would prevent you from participating.









APPENDIX B
SORENESS SCALE

Subject Number: Session #: Date:

Directions: Rate your level of soreness on a 1-10 scale.
1 = no pain 3 = slightly painful 5 = moderately painful
8 = very painful 10 = extremely painful

1 day post-test
Date:
Level of Soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 days post-test
Date:
Level of Soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 week post-test
Date:
Level of Soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 weeks post-test
Date:
Level of soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10









LIST OF REFERENCES


1. Svensson M, Lovsund P, Haland Y, Larsson S. The influence of seat-back and head-restraint
properties on the head-neck motion during rear impact. Proceedings of the International
IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts 1993; 395-406.

2. Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Clinical review: whiplash injury. Pain 1994; 58: 283-307.

3. McConnell WE, Howard RP, Poppel JV. Human head and neck kinematic after low velocity
rear-end impacts: understanding "whiplash". In: 39th Stapp Car Crash Conference
Proceedings: SAE No 952724 1995: 215-238.

4. Brault J, Wheeler J, Siegmund G, Brault E. Clinical response of human subjects to rear-end
automobile collisions. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998; 79: 72-80.

5. Yoganandan N, Pintar F, Cusick J. Biomechanical analyses of whiplash injuries using an
experimental model. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2002; 34: 663-671.

6. Howard R, Bowles A, Guzman H, Krenrich S. Head, neck, and mandible dynamics generated
by 'whiplash'. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1998; 30(4): 525-534.

7. Ono K, Kaneoka K, Wittek A, Kajzer J. Cervical injury mechanism based on the analysis of
human cervical vertebral motion and head-neck-torso kinematics during low speed rear
impacts. In: 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings: SAE No 973340 1997: 339-356.

8. Harrison DD, Harrison SO, Croft AC, Harrison DE, Troyanovich SJ. Sitting Biomechanics,
Part II: Optimal Car Driver's Seat and Optimal Driver's Spinal Model. Journal of
Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2000; 23(1): 37-47.

9. Severy DM, Mathewson JH. Automobile barrier and rear-end collision performance. Society
of Automotive Engineers summer meeting, Atlantic City, NJ, 1958: June 8-13.

10. Severy DM, Mathewson JH, Bechtol CO. Controlled automobile rear-end collisions, an
investigation of related engineering and mechanical phenomenon. Canadian Services
Medical Journal 1955; 11: 727-758.

11. Siegmund GP, King DJ, Lawrence JM, Wheeler JB, Brault JR, Smith TA. Head/neck
kinematic response of human subjects in low-speed rear-end collisions. SAE technical paper
973341 1997: 357-385.

12. West DH, Gough JP, Harper TK. Low speed rear-end collision testing using human subjects.
Accident Reconstruction Journal 1993; 5(3): 22-26.

13. McConnell WE, Howard RP, Guzman HM, Bomar JB, Raddian JH, Bendict V, Smith HL,
Hatsell CP. Analysis of human test subject kinematic responses to low velocity rear end
impacts. SAE paper No 930889 1993.









14. Minton R, Murray P, Stephenson W, Galasko CSB. Whiplash injury are current head
restraints doing theirjob?. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 177-185.

15. Ryan GA, Taylor GW, Moore VM, Dolinis J. Neck strain in car occupants: the influence of
crash-related factors on initial severity. Medical Journal of Australia 1993; 159: 651-656.

16. Zuby DS, Vann T, Lund AK, Morris CR. Crash test evaluation of whiplash injury risk.
Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 99SC17 1999.

17. Anderson R, Welcher J, Szabo T, Eubanks J, Haight WR. Effect of braking on human
occupant and vehicle kinematics in low speed rear-end collisions. Society of Automotive
Engineers SAE No 980298 1998.

18. Szabo TJ, Welcher JB. Human subject kinematics and electromyographic activity during low
speed rear impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 962432 1996.

19. Welcher JB, Szabo TJ. Relationships between seat properties and human subject kinematics
in rear impact tests. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2001; 33: 289-304.

20. Lundell B, Jakobsson L, Alfredsson B, Jernstrom, Isaksson-Hellman I. Guidelines for and the
design of a car seat concept for improved protection against neck injuries in rear end car
impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 980301 1998.

21. Watanabe Y, Ichikawa H, Kayama O. Relationships between occupant motion and seat
characteristics in low-speed rear impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 1999-
01-0635 1999.

22. Croft AC, Herring P, Freeman MD, Haneline MT. The neck injury criterion: future
considerations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2002; 34: 247-255.

23. Hosea TM, Simon SR, Delatizky J, Wong MA, Hsieh CC. Myoelectric analysis of the
paraspinal musculature in relation to automobile driving. Spine 1986; 11: 928-936.

24. Farmer CM, Wells JK, Werner JV. Relationship of head restraint positioning to driver neck
injury in rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1999; 31: 719-728.

25. Siegmund GP, Heinrichs BE, Wheeler JB. The influence of head restraint and occupant
factors on peak head/neck kinematics in low-speed rear-end collisions. Accident Analysis
and Prevention 1999; 31: 393-407.

26. Viano D, Gargan M. Headrest position during normal driving: implication to neck injury risk
in rear crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1996; 28(6): 665-674.

27. Maher J. Report investigating the importance of head restraint positioning in reducing neck
injury in rear impact. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 299-305.









28. Severy D. Engineering studies of motorist injury exposures from rear-end collisions. Trauma
1970; 12(2): 81-106.

29. Nygren A, Gustafsson H, Tingvall C. Effects of different types of head restraints in rear-end
collisions. 10th International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles, Oxford, England,
1985: 85-90.

30. Lawrence JM, Siegmund GP. Seat back and head restraint response during low-speed rear-
end automobile collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 219-232.

31. Viano D. Influence of setback angle on occupant dynamics in simulated rear-end impacts.
Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 922521 1992.

32. Thomas P, Bradford M. The nature and source of the head injuries sustained by restrained
front-seat car occupants in frontal collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1995; 27(4):
561-570.

33. Kumar S, Narayan Y, Amell T. Role of awareness in head-neck acceleration in low velocity
rear-end impacts. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 233-241.

34. Emori R, Horiguchi J. Whiplash in low speed vehicle collisions. Society of Automotive
Engineers SAE No 900542 1990.

35. Mertz HJ, Patrick LM. Strength and response of the human neck. In: Proceedings of the 15th
Stapp Car Crash Conference. Coronado, California: Society of Automotive Engineers SAE
No 710855 1971: 207-255.

36. Ryan GA, Taylor GW, Moore VM, Dolinis J. Neck strain in car occupants: injury status after
6 months and crash-related factors. Injury 1994; 25: 533-537.

37. States J, Korn M, Masengill J. The enigma of whiplash injuries. Proceedings of the 13th
Annual Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine 1969: 83-108.

38. Sturzenegger M, DiStefano G, Radanov BP, Schnidrig A. Presenting symptoms and signs
after whiplash injury: the influence of accident mechanisms. Neurology 1994; 44: 688-693.

39. Brault J, Siegmund G, Wheeler J. Whiplash injury biomechanics: cervical electromyographic
response and influence on whiplash dynamics. Whiplash: Compendium of Abstracts 1998;
SP-1406: 25.

40. Elson L. The jolt syndrome muscle dysfunction following low-velocity impact. Pain
Management 1990; November/December: 317-326.

41. Szabo TJ, Welcher JB. Human subject responses to various acceleration fields. Low Speed
Collision TOPTEC (SAE), Richmond, BC, August 1996.









42. Balla JI. The late whiplash syndrome. Aust. N.Z. Journal of Surgery 1980; 50(6): 610-614.

43. Bring G, BjornstigU, Westman G. Gender patterns in minor head and neck injuries: an
analysis of casualty register data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1996; 28: 359-370.

44. Hohl M. Soft-tissue injuries of the neck in automobile accidents. Journal of Bone and Joint
Surgery 1974; 56A: 1675-1682.

45. Kahane CJ. An evaluation of head restraints- federal motor vehicle safety standard 202 (DOT
HS-806 108). US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, February 1982.

46. Krafft M, Thomas A, Nygren A, Lie A, Tingvall C. Whiplash associated disorder- Factors
influencing the incidence of rear-end collisions. In: Proceedings of the 15th ESV Conference.
Melbourne, Australia: Paper No 96-S9-O-09 1996: 319-326.

47. Lovsund P. Neck injuries in rear end collisions among front and rear seat occupants.
Proceedings of International IRCOBI Conference Biomechanics of Impacts 1988: 319-325.

48. Minton R, Murray P, Pitcher M, Galasko CSB. Causative factors in whiplash injury:
implications for current seat and head restraint design. Proceedings of International IRCOBI
Conference on Biomechanics of Impacts 1997: 207-222.

49. Morris A, Thomas P. A study of soft tissue neck injuries in the UK. Proceedings of the 15th
ESV Conference May 1996; Paper No. 96-S9-O-08: 1412-1425.

50. O'Neill B, Haddon W, Kelley AB, Sorenson WW. Automobile head restraints: Frequency of
neck injury insurance claims in relation to the presence of head restraints. American Journal
of Public Health 1972; March: 399-406.

51. Otremski I, Marsh JL, Wilde BR, McLardy Smith PD, Newman RJ. Soft tissue cervical
spinal injuries in motor vehicle accidents. Injury 1989; 20: 349-351.

52. Otte D, Pohlemann T, Blauth M. Significance of soft tissue neck injuries AIS 1 in the
accident scene, and deformation, characteristics of cars with delta-V up to 10 km/h.
Proceedings of the International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts 1997:
265-83.

53. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E. Scientific
monograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash associated disorders: redefining 'whiplash'
and its management. Spine 1995; 20: 8.

54. States J, Balcerak J, Williams J. Injury frequency and head restraint effectiveness in rear end
impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 720967 1972.









55. Van den Kroonenberg A, Philippens M, Cappon H, Wismans J. Human head-neck response
during low-speed rear end impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 983158 1998.

56. Cassidy J, Carroll L, Cote P, Frank J. Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation benefit whiplash
recovery? Results of a population-based incidence cohort study. Spine 2007; 32: 126-31.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Martin Charles Hillier was born in 1981, in Abbekerk, Netherlands. He was raised by

English parents and lived in Holland until the age of five, when he moved to New Jersey. Martin

immediately became involved in soccer, a life-long love. At the age of 10 Martin moved to Boca

Raton, Florida, where he spent the next eight years of his life. While there, he attended Spanish

River High School where he excelled in athletics and academics. Martin was later accepted into

the University of Florida, where he spent his college years, without a doubt the years that defined

him as a person. While there he graduated with a B.S. in exercise and sport sciences and an M.S.

in applied physiology and kinesiology. Martin also has an older sister and a younger sister who

attends or has attended the University of Florida. His other sibling, Robert, is training to be a

law enforcement officer. Martin's years in Gainesville were most memorable because of his

wife. He met Jill Megan Binkley on July 4, 2002, and they were married on July 8, 2006.

Martin and Jill currently live in Saint Augustine, Florida. They are both teachers and they are

avid travelers. Jill teaches 4th grade and Martin teaches IB physics. Jill plans to return to

Gainesville to earn her doctorate degree and Martin plans to become involved in the accident

reconstruction field in the near future.





PAGE 1

1 HEAD ACCELERATION AND ASSOCIATED PAIN FELT IN THE NECK REGION DURING A SIMULATED AUTOMOBILE LOW VELOCITY REAR-END COLLISION AS A FUNCTION OF SEAT BACK ANGLE By MARTIN CHARLES HILLIER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Martin Charles Hillier

PAGE 3

3 To all those who supported me throughout my ventures, including my wife, family, advisors, and financial supporters.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been possibl e without my supervisory committee. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Ti llman for all of his guidance and support. His advice and encouragement made this possible. Next, I would like to thank Dr. John Chow. Dr. Chow was instrumental throughout my career at the University of Florida and he taught me many of the concepts regarding biomechanics. I would also like to thank Dr. Jim Ipser for his financial support and for sharing his wealth of kno wledge in the fields of car crash safety and physics. Next, I thank Dr. Ronald Siders and K im Fournier for contributing their time and effort to help make this a success. In addition, I se nd a sincere thank you to my family and my wife for their support throughout this long and arduous process. Their understanding and sacrifice is more than I could ask for. Finally, I thank the subjects who participated in my study.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .12 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................14 Whiplash.................................................................................................................................14 Whiplash Stages..............................................................................................................14 Injury Mechanism............................................................................................................17 Specific Injuries Caused by Whiplash and Associated Symptoms.................................18 Prevalence of Whiplash Injuries in Society.....................................................................21 Automobile Characteristics Contributing to Injury................................................................22 Seat Angle.......................................................................................................................22 Headrest Function and Position.......................................................................................23 Seat Belt...................................................................................................................... .....25 Crash Factors Affecting Injury...............................................................................................25 Comparison of Body Kinematics during Rear-End Collisions and Frontal Impacts......25 Relationship Between Selected Velocity and Injury Tolerance......................................26 Influence of Occupant Awareness during a Crash..........................................................26 Demographics of Selected Participants..................................................................................27 Human Subjects Compared to Anthro pomorphic Dummies and Cadavers....................27 Likelihood of Injury in Males and Females....................................................................28 Effect of Age on Inju ry Susceptibility.............................................................................29 3 METHODS...................................................................................................................... .......31 Participants.............................................................................................................................31 Experimental Apparatus.........................................................................................................31 Ramp................................................................................................................................31 Seat Platform...................................................................................................................32 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......32 Procedure................................................................................................................................33 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................34

PAGE 6

6 Acceleration of the Head.................................................................................................34 Pain Scale........................................................................................................................35 Statistical Analysis........................................................................................................... .......35 Acceleration of the Head.................................................................................................35 Pain Scale........................................................................................................................35 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........38 Participants.............................................................................................................................38 Horizontal Acceleration........................................................................................................ ..38 Vertical Acceleration.......................................................................................................... ....38 Resultant Acceleration......................................................................................................... ...38 Time Motion Analysis........................................................................................................... .39 Pain Scale..................................................................................................................... ...........40 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......46 Horizontal Acceleration........................................................................................................ ..46 Vertical Acceleration.......................................................................................................... ....47 Resultant Acceleration......................................................................................................... ...48 Time Motion Analysis........................................................................................................... .49 Pain.........................................................................................................................................51 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........52 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX A MEDICAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................54 B SORENESS SCALE............................................................................................................... 55 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................61

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Participant characteristics..............................................................................................41 4-2 Acceleration data for time motion analysis ....................................................................41

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Stages of whiplash motion.............................................................................................30 3-1 Automobile seat mounted on a rolling platform .............................................................36 3-2 Ramp and stoppi ng appara tus. .......................................................................................36 3-3 Guard rails on ramp.......................................................................................................3 6 3-4 Accelerometer and mouthpiece. .....................................................................................37 3-5 Sample horizontal acceleration graph .............................................................................37 4-1 Mean horizontal, vertical, and resultant acceleration for all angles.. ...............................42 4-2 Horizontal and vertical acceleration for participant three, 100 trial one........................43 4-3 Time-motion analysis for participant three, 100 trial one.............................................44 4-4 Mean pain ratings at each seat position. .........................................................................45 4-5 Mean pain rating interactio n with seat pos ition and time ................................................45

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIS Abbreviated injury scale cm Centimeter v / t Change in velocity divided by change in time Degrees ft Feet Hz Hertz in Inch kg Kilogram kph Kilometers per hour MRI Magnetic resonance imaging m Meter m/s2 Meters per second squared mph Miles per hour mm Millimeter ms Milliseconds lbs Pounds SCM Sternocleidomastoid muscle V Volts WAD Whiplash associated disorder

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science HEAD ACCELERATION AND ASSOCIATED PAIN FELT IN THE NECK REGION DURING A SIMULATED AUTOMOBILE LOW VELOCITY REAR-END COLLISION AS A FUNCTION OF SEAT BACK ANGLE By Martin Charles Hillier May 2008 Chair: Mark Tillman Major: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology The angle of the seat back is an important factor in head acceleration and pain felt during a low velocity rear-end collision. Ten male volunteers with a mean age of 22.40 2.37 years, mean height of 1.79 0.035 m, and mean mass of 81.92 11.51 kg were exposed to impacts designed to replicate this type of collision in a lab setting. The change in velocity for each impact was approximately 8 kph (5 mph). The variable during the study was the angle of the seat back. Three seat back angles consisting of 100 115 and 130 from horizontal were tested. In general, as the angle of the seat back increased, the peak horizontal, vertical, and resultant accelerations decreased. More specifically, significant differences were detected for the horizontal accelerations with increased values for 100 when compared to 115 and 130 There was no significance difference observed when comparing the vertical accelerations across the three seat angles. The resultant acceleration showed significant differences when comparing 130 to 100 and 115 with the lower acceleration occurring in the 130 seat position in both cases. Conversely, pain increased signi ficantly as the angle increased. The 130 seat position had significantly higher pain ratings when compared to the 100 and 115 seat positions.

PAGE 11

11 Therefore, it can be inferred that there is an inverse relationship between seat back angle and acceleration while there is a direct relationship between seat back angle and pain. Based on further analysis of the data collected during this study, it may be possible that the increase in pain is due to the larger contribution of the muscles and the decreased contribution of the headrest to stop the head during the trials at 130 To minimize risk, it is recommended to maintain a 100 seat back angle when in the front row of an automobile.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Low velocity rear-end collisions are considered to be minor in severity, however they are very common and they represent a financial burden to society.1 The injuries caused by these collisions can be classified under one common diso rder known as whiplash associated disorder (WAD). These injuries include vertebral and spinal injuries and muscle strains.2 Although the injuries related to rear-end collisions are known, the causes are still under investigation. “Whiplash” is characterized by a sudden and forcef ul extension of the neck followed by a less severe flexion of the neck. The motion associated with whiplash injuries has been broken into five separate phases. Included are the initial response, principal forward acceleration, torso recovery, head deceleration, and restitution phases.3 Phases that involve extension of the neck typically cause injuries to the anterior musculature of the neck, intervertebral discs, posterior vertebral structures, and the anterior longitudinal ligament. Extension occurs during the first two phases. Flexion of the neck causes less severe injuries including posterior muscle strains and herniated discs and occurs during the third and fourth phases of the whiplash motion.2 Previous research in this area has focused on factors such as change in velocity, headrest position, occupant awareness, and gender. However, research in the area of seat orientation has been limited. Based on the geometry of an automobile seat and the natural seated position of the occupant, changing the angle of the seat b ack could create a change in body position and occupant kinematics, specifically th e acceleration that the head undergoe s. It is also possible that a change in acceleration could create a variation in the risk of injury during a low velocity rearend collision. The purpose of the current study is to determine whether the angle of the seat back will contribute to the peak acceleration experien ced by the head during a low velocity rear-end collision. In addition, pain felt by the participant after the collision will be assessed and

PAGE 13

13 compared across seat angles. The findings of th is study could provide valuable information to automotive safety engineers and could assist in the design of a safer automobile seat.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Whiplash Whiplash Stages Generally, whiplash injuries occur much more frequently in rear-end collisions than in any other crash configuration,4 with rear-end collisions accounting for 85% of all crashes reporting whiplash injuries.5 More specifically, during a low speed, rear-end collision there are five phases of the motion associated with whiplash injuries. These five phases begin shortly after the collision between the two automobiles. During the first 100 ms of the collision there is no movement of the body (Figure 2-1A). Therefore, this initial period is not included in the sequence of events that causes the injuries associated with whiplash.2 The first phase involving movement of the body is called the initial response. This phase can last anywhere from 50 to 100 ms.3,6,7 During this phase the seat of the vehicle moves forward relative to the body due to the rear impact (Figure 2-1B). This applies pressure to the pelvis and the lower back and also causes the seat back to begin deflecting backwards due to the forces the body applies to the chair.3 This deflection can be simply explained by Newton’s third law of motion. As the inertial forces of the body accelerate the seat back wards, the seat back applies an equal force that acts to decelerate the body. The head does not undergo any motion during this phase nor do the muscles of the neck exhibit any response. However, towards the end of the first phase, the thoracic vertebrae begin to move forward and slightly upward.6 Finally, the body undergoes the beginning stages of ramping up. Ramping up is defined as the body sliding up the seat due to the forces encountered during impact. The degree of severity of this phenomenon changes with the severity of th e crash and the inclination of the seat back.7 During low speed collisions (Five mph or less) this motion is typically not severe enough to

PAGE 15

15 cause the occupant’s head to rise above the head rest, assuming that the headrest is present and raised to the appropriate height for the occupant.3 The second phase of the motion is called the principal forward acceleration.3 This phase lasts approximately 100 ms.3,6,7 At the beginning of this phase, the seat back has reached maximum deflection3,6 and the head and neck undergo an extension motion.3,6,7 The head moves backward relative to the torso due to its inertia while accelerating and rotating in the rearward direction.7 This rotation can be stopped by the head restraint or by the anatomical structures of the spine and the neck, if the head restraint is ineffective. In addition, the body continues the ramping up motion and there is an arching of the torso due to the extension of the spine. The spine reaches maximum extension during this phase (Figure 2-1C).6 Compression injuries to the posterior structures of the cervical spine, if present, are a result of this phase.2 The next significant occurrence in this phase is the activation of the anterior musculature of the neck. This musculature, specifically the SCM, is actively resisting the abrupt backward motion of the head.6,7 Due to the time it takes for the nerve impul se to reach the muscle, this peak muscle activation occurs approximately 70-100 ms after th e rearward motion of the head begins. It is also worth noting that the muscles may not reach peak activity before this phase ends. If the muscles never reach peak activity, the risk for injury to the muscles goes down.7 Factors including crash severity and horizontal distance be tween the headrest and the back of the head can significantly alter the amount of time and the ri sk of injury during this phase. The angle of the seat back is directly related to the horizontal distance between the back of the head and the headrest. More specifically, as the angle of inclination increases so does the horizontal distance. Therefore, as the angle of the seat increases, the time before contact with the headrest also increases.

PAGE 16

16 The third phase of the whiplash motion, or the torso recovery and forward head acceleration phase also lasts approximately 100 ms.3,6,7 During this phase, the head and neck undergo flexion and the torso and the seat back begin to return to their pre-impact positions. The torso achieves a velocity that exceeds the velocity of the vehicle, thus creating the forward motion of the torso (Figure 2-1D).3,6 However, the velocity of the head is significantly higher than the velocity of the vehicle and the acceleration is usually two to three times that of the vehicle.3,7-12 This relative increase of velocity and acceleration creates a flexion motion of the neck. During this phase, the muscle activity of the neck continues, however the posterior neck muscles are placed under more stress due to their resistance of the forward flexion motion. The most involved muscle is the trapezius.3,6,7 The fourth phase also lasts approximately 100 ms,3,6,7 and is called the head deceleration phase.3 In this phase, the head finishes the forward flexion motion while the musculature decelerates the head, and the head begi ns to return to the pre-impact position.3,6 During this phase, the upper cervical vertebrae are in extens ion while the lower cervical vertebrae are in flexion (Figure 2-1E).6 If the impact is severe enough, the head will be stopped by the chest through contact with the anterior portion of the mandible, or chin. Otherwise, the posterior musculature of the neck will be primarily responsible for the end of the forward movement. If injuries are present in the posterior musculature of the neck, it is due to phases three and four. Finally, the torso continues its return to its pre-impact position.3,6 The fifth and final phase, or the restitution phase,3 consists of the body and head finishing their progression to the pre-impact position and is characterized by the ceasing of muscle activity in the neck (Figure 2-1F). This phase is generally the longest phase lasting 150 to 200 ms.3,6,13

PAGE 17

17 This five phase motion is representative of all whiplash injuries, however the severity of these injuries can change due to the characteristics and circumstances related to the individual crash. Some of these factors include change in velocity and occupant orientation. The most significant factor concerning occupant orientation is the angle of the head relative to the torso.7 In the current study, this angle will change based on the angle of the seatback. As the angle of the seatback increases, the angle of flexion between the neck and the head must increase in order to maintain a head position that is perpendicular to the surface of the road. Injury Mechanism The motion previously described is capable of causing a variety of injuries. However, separate injuries occur during the different phases of motion of the head and neck. During extension, compressive forces are applied to the posterior structures and tensile forces are applied to the anterior structures. The most common anterior structures involved during extension are the esophagus, anterior longitudina l ligament, anterior cervical muscles, the odontoid process of the second cervical vertebrae, and the intervertebral discs. The posterior structures at risk during extension are the facet joints and the spinous processes of the vertebrae.2 During normal extension, the structures of the vertebrae and the muscles of the anterior neck are within their physiological and anatomical limits. In this case, no injury will occur. However, during low velocity rear-end collisions, these structures may be subjected to forces which exceed healthy limits. In this scenario, the facet joints between the superior articular process of the lower vertebra and the inferior articular process of the higher vertebra are the first anatomical structures to be stressed, thus they become th e point about which the vertebrae rotate. If the forces of rotation become too great for the facet joints to withstand, one of three things is possible. First, the facet joints could experien ce a crush fracture. Second, the spinous processes of the vertebrae could come in contact due to the forced extension and fracture as a result.

PAGE 18

18 Finally, the anterior structures of the vertebr ae and neck could stretch beyond their elastic limit or the vertebral body could fracture. These anterior structures include muscles, the anterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical vertebrae, and the intervertebral discs.2 During the flexion phase the opposite occurs. Compressive forces are now applied to the anterior anatomy and tensile forces are applied to the posterior anatomy of the cervical spine. The main structures involved in this phase are th e intervertebral discs and vertebral bodies in the anterior portion and the facet joint capsules along with the posterior neck muscles in the posterior portion. The most common injuries during the flexion phase are ruptured discs, vertebral body fractures, and muscle and ligament strains.2 The final and least likely source of injury during low velocity rear-end collisions are shear forces resulting from the horizontal motion of the body during the crash. Assuming a nearvertical position of the spine before the collision, horizontal forces will be transmitted parallel to the intervertebral discs. These forces can cause injury to the facet joint capsules and the anterior portion of the intervertebral discs. Based on the anatomy of the cervical vertebrae, the facet joint capsules experience compression from shear forces and the anterior portion of the intervertebral discs experiences a tensile force due to the backward motion of the superior vertebra.2 Specific Injuries Caused by Whiplash and Associated Symptoms As previously mentioned, the body parts most affected by whiplash injuries are the musculature of the neck and cervical vertebrae and surrounding structures. Injuries involving these structures can either be short lived or chronic, and are generally classified as WAD.14 However, because these injuries are non-fatal, no formal pathological studies can be done to determine exact causes or locations of injury. As medical technology becomes more advanced, accuracy of diagnosis is becoming better, but th ese injuries will probably never be as well understood as more serious, fatal injuries. To da te, many types of studies have been performed

PAGE 19

19 to better understand these injuries; however each method has its own limitations. These methods include cadaver experiments, animal exper iments, and radiographic studies. Cadaver experiments utilize the same anatomy, but do not demonstrate the same muscular response as a live human being. Animal experiments provide a live subject, but differences in anatomy and body size provide limiting factors. Finally, radiographic studies show injuries in live human beings, but they do not allow for first-hand examination of the affected structures. Even if the patient requires surgery for the injury sustained, it is generally much later and the anatomy during surgery may be different than it was directly after the crash.2 Generally, injuries to the musculature of the neck are short lived, while injuries to intervertebral discs, facet joints, and cervical ligaments usually cause chronic neck pain. Injuries to the facet joints, including fractures and tears of the joint capsules, are fairly common and can cause chronic pain. Many times, this pain is due to a missed diagnosis resulting from an inability or difficulty to see the injury on a typical X-ray or MRI. Disc injuries are also common, but are easier to diagnose, as they are generally more common in the medical community and are easier to detect from an MRI. The two most common varieties of disc injuries are a separation of the disc from the vertebra and an anterior rupture due to compression of the posterior spine during extension.2 Muscle injuries, specifically tears and strains, are the most common injuries suffered by individuals with whiplash. This is due to the sequence of events of a whiplash injury. The muscles act as a protective mechanism to the other structures that could potentially be involved. They are the first structure that resists the motion of the head, thus they undergo the greatest stress. Muscles will undergo mild injury in order to keep the spine aligned and free of injury. It is only when the muscles can no longer withsta nd the acceleration and resultant forces of the head that the other structures become susceptible to injury.6 Muscle injuries, while being the

PAGE 20

20 most common, are also the shortest lasting, with a maximum healing time of two to three weeks, while many times resolving in just a few days.2 The final major structures contributing to whiplash injuries are the ligaments, specifically the anterior longitudinal ligament. Anatomical studies have shown that the anterior longitudinal li gament and the annulus fibrosis of the anterior intervertebral discs in the cervical vertebrae merge together, thus anterior longitudinal ligament injuries and disc injuries are often associated together. Injuries to this ligament occur only during the extension phase of the whiplash motion, and are characterized by a partial tear or complete rupture of the ligament.2 In summary, although there are other sources of injury during whiplash, the vast majority of whiplash injuri es are directly related to the facet joints, intervertebral discs, and anterior ligaments of the cervical vertebrae. With these very specific injuries come various symptoms. Symptoms of WAD include pain in the neck or shoulder region, dizziness, headaches, blurred vision, concentration and memory disturbances, and paraesthesia or tingling and numbness in the hands.2,14-16 Neck pain is the most reported complaint among individuals who report whiplash injuries. This pain is reported in the anterior and posterior portion of the neck, although posterior pain is the dominant complaint. This pain can come in several forms. The two most common forms are dull and aching and sharp pain. Both forms are exacerbated with movement and many times movement is restricted due to stiffness.2 Previous studies using similar speeds to the current study have shown that neck pain, if any is present, has resolved within four days.6,7,12,13,17-19 Due to the complexity and multitude of possible causes of injury, the exact correlation between types of neck pain and type of crash is not completely understood. The second most frequently reported symptom reported is headaches. The most likely causes of these headaches are the upper three cervical nerves originating from the first, second, and th ird cervical vertebrae. Afferents from these three

PAGE 21

21 nerves terminate in the cervical portion of the trigeminal nucleus, located in the caudal region. Because the ophthalmic portion of the trigeminal nu cleus is also in the caudal region, pain from C1-C3 is usually referred to the orbital and temp oral regions. This referred pain is the most likely cause for headaches related to the whiplash motion.2 Previous studies at or near the speed used in the current study show that headaches, if present, resolved within two days.4,19 Other headaches that could originate would result from concussion or intracranial hemorrhage, however during a low velocity collision these t ypes of injuries are extremely unlikely. Paraesthesia, another symptom reported by whipla sh patients, is caused by compression of the nerves of the brachial plexus by the surrounding anatomical structures including muscles. The other symptoms relating to whiplash, including di zziness, blurred vision, and concentration and memory disturbances, have not been suffici ently explained in the current research.2 Prevalence of Whiplash Injuries in Society Whiplash injuries, although minor in severity, are a major health problem around the world and they create a huge economic burden to insurance companies, hospitals, and the patients affected by these injuries. In general, whip lash injuries are most likely to occur when the vehicle is involved in a rear-end impact with speeds less than 12.5 mph.4,16,20 The injuries are usually classified as minor on the abbreviated in jury scale, otherwise known as AIS 1 injuries. However, the frequency of permanent disability is about 10%. This is extremely high when compared to other AIS 1 classified injuries, which have a permanent disability rate of only 0.1%.1 Thus, injuries related to whiplash are 100 times more likely to produce permanent disability than other injuries of similar severity. In addition to having a relatively high rate of disability, these injuries are also very common, as neck strains and sprains associated with whiplash are the most serious injuries reported by 40 % of automobile accident claimants in the United States.11 This percentage

PAGE 22

22 coincides well with statistic s from two studies in Japan during the years 1996 and 1997. Watanabe et al. state that 44.0 % of 547,654 in juries suffered during a car accident in 1996 were neck injuries resulting from a rear-end impact and 44.7% of 563,121 injuries from 1997 were neck injuries resulting from a rear-end impact.21 In Western countries, about 25% of all people reporting an injury related to whiplash deve lop a chronic condition and 20% of those people suffer serious pain.5 Finally, in 2002 Croft et al. estimated that the cost associated with whiplash injuries exceeds $19 billion every year, which is sure to be much higher currently.22 All of these statistics show that there is a great need to better comprehend the causes of these injuries and to reduce the risk of whiplash injuries throughout the world. Automobile Characteristics Contributing to Injury Seat Angle The angle of the seatback is an important controllable factor related to the motion of the neck and the forces felt by the muscles of the posterior and anterior portions of the neck; however it has received little attention when discussing whiplash research. Ergonomics of products such as office chairs have been studied extensively, and there have been several studies on the ergonomics of automobile seats, yet an optimal position to reduce the risk of whiplash injury for a driver in an automobile has been more or less ignored, thus there is extremely limited research in this area.17 The previous studies in automobile seat ergonomics have shown a minimal myoelectric activity of the anterior and posterior muscles of the neck at a seat back inclination of 120 .17,23 However, these studies had no relation to whiplash injuries. The inclination of the seat back in an automobile affects the loads applied to the ligaments and the intervertebral discs of the cervical spine.7 When the seatback angle is altered, the angle between the neck and the torso must change, assuming that the driver’s head is always perpendicular with the surface of the road. The change in the angle between the neck and the

PAGE 23

23 torso may be an important factor contributing to the differences in force felt by the anatomical structures of the neck. When the seat is reclined past 90 the neck is forced into flexion, subsequently creating a larger angle through whic h the head must move, and possibly creating a larger end velocity of the third phase of the whiplash motion. Therefore, when the muscles activate to decelerate the head during this motion, it is also possible that the inertial forces exerted by the muscles of the neck are greater from a flexed position when compared to an upright position. If this increase in force exceeds the injury threshold, the increase in seat back angle would create injury where there would be no injury from a more upright-seated position. In addition, if the seat is more upright, the distance between the back of the head and the headrest reduces. Therefore, the time between backward cervical rotation and contact between the head and headrest will be reduced. This topic will be discussed further in a later section. The final factor that is affected by the position of the seatback is an aforementioned motion referred to as ramping up. This motion is characterized by an upward movement of the body along the seatback during a rear-end collision. If the motion is significant enough, the head will move above the headrest, thus eliminating the effectiveness of the headrest and increasing the risk of injury due to hyperextension. However, having a more upright seat position decreases this motion and should also decrease the risk of pa in or injury. The variable manipulated in the present study was the angle of the seat back a nd how it contributed to the acceleration of the head during the whiplash motion and the pain felt in the musculature of the neck. Headrest Function and Position The headrest of a car seat has been proven to be effective in the reduction of injuries during a low velocity rear-end collision when used in the correct manner.1,24-26 The primary function of the head restraint is to limit the amount of rearward motion, or extension, that the neck undergoes during a rear-end collision. If used properly, the head restraint is designed to

PAGE 24

24 terminate the head motion before hyperextension of the neck occurs. During hyperextension the more serious injuries such as intervertebral disc rupture, anterior longitudinal ligament rupture, and vertebral fractures occur. Although the headrest should eliminate these types of injuries, it is still very possible to have less severe soft tissue injuries such as muscle strains, even if the headrest is used properly. Hyperextension is one of the leading causes of injury to the neck, thus if the head restraint is not used properly the likelihood of injury increases.27,28 Head restraint height is the only adjustable variable in the majority of modern head restraints. It has been reported that a minimum of 27.5 inches from the seat to the top of the headrest should be present to reduce injury, and th e top of the headrest should be at least as high as the vertical midpoint of the head.24,26 In addition, Nygren et al. have shown that complaints of whiplash injuries nearly doubled when occupants reported a low headrest position instead of a high headrest position.29 Additionally, 83% of drivers and passengers do not adjust their headrest to the proper height.9 In order to help prevent injuries during this study, the headrest will be placed in the highest position allowed by the structure of the car seat. The final factor related to the headrest that contributes to the forces felt by the head and neck is the horizontal headrest distance, defined as the distance from the occipital protuberance of the head to the front of the headrest. While the headrest height stays constant, the change in seat back angle will also create a change in horizontal headrest distance, which in turn will cause a larger degree of neck flexion and a greater angular displacement of the head during the whiplash motion. Ideally, the gap between the oc cipital protuberance and the headrest should be no greater than half of the anteroposterior diameter of the head.26 Many studies have shown that the greater this distance is, the greater the demands are on the muscles of the neck.1,14,19,22,24,26,27 However, none of these studies have related th is phenomenon to the angle of the seatback.

PAGE 25

25 Seat Belt Previous studies have shown that an anth ropomorphic dummy was adequately retained by the seat in rear-end impacts up to 14.3 mph.30,31 In order for a seat belt to be required and effective, the forward excursion of the torso must be large enough to lock the seatbelt. In the current study, the movement of the torso would no t have caused this to happen. Therefore, it was determined that a seat belt would have little to no effect on the kinematics of the head or the torso during the collision. Crash Factors Affecting Injury Comparison of Body Kinematics during Rear-End Collisions and Frontal Impacts The motion of the body during rear end and frontal impacts has similarities, however the motion during rear end impacts is responsible for the vast majority of recorded whiplash injuries.16,20,21 Frontal impacts are defined as having a direction of force between eleven o’clock and one o’clock with direct contact to the front of the car. During frontal impacts, the accepted motion of whiplash is not present, thus the injuries are generally less severe and less frequent. The first motion of the neck during a frontal impact is flexion, which is followed by a less severe extension motion. Furthermore, at a velocity of five mph, the likelihood of a hyperextension injury becomes very small. This is due to the dissipation of force from the posterior musculature of the neck and possible contact between the sternum and chin. As the first motion is the most severe in terms of acceleration, extension injuries during frontal impacts occur with much less regularity and generally occur in higher velocity crashes.32 This is opposite to the motion that takes place during a rear end collision. In this type of collision, extension of the neck is the first motion and it is followed by flexion.3,6,7 Because the first motion is more severe than the second, the anatomical structures involved with hyperext ension injuries become much more susceptible, and because hyperextension injuries such as ligament ruptures, herniated discs, and vertebral

PAGE 26

26 fractures are more serious than flexion injuries, it is fair to conclude that low velocity rear end collisions create a much higher probability for whiplash injuries than low velocity frontal impacts. Relationship Between Selected Velocity and Injury Tolerance Most WAD injuries occur when there is a change in velocity between 6.2 mph and 12.5 mph.27 In previous studies testing human subject s at a velocity of five mph, no subject experienced WAD symptoms lasting more than three days, and there was no recurrence of pain at any point in the future. Primary complaints consisted of muscle pain, headache, and other cervical symptoms.4,12,13,16 In addition, the Insurance Institu te for Highway Safety, the primary government crash test agency, uses a velocity of five mph to test vehicles for resistance to low speed crash damage. Therefore, in order to protect the participants as much as possible, five mph was chosen as the test velocity. The sec ond reason for selecting five mph as the velocity was to ensure that the defined motion of whiplash occurred. If the change in velocity of the vehicle were too low, the forces required for the head to undergo the five phases of motion previously described would not be sufficient. Pr eviously, West et al. tested at three mph or less and reported that the rearward displacement of the head following impact was not large enough to classify the motion as a typical whiplash movement.12 Influence of Occupant Awareness during a Crash Occupant awareness, or the anticipation of an impending impact, not only changes the motion of the head and neck during a rear-end collision, but it can also change the likelihood of a whiplash injury. The main factors that creat e awareness during a rear-end collision are the screeching of the tires from the vehicle behind and seeing the car behind in the mirrors of the vehicle. The most common reaction of drivers when they anticipate a collision is to contract the muscles in the neck. Participants in studies who were instructed to anticipate the impending

PAGE 27

27 crash and tense their neck muscles prior to impact have reported less severe pain and injuries and state that the crash seemed less severe when comparing it to a crash with the same change in velocity and an unaware state.15,33,38 Contraction of the muscles prior to impact creates an ability to resist extension beyond normal physiological an d anatomical limits and consequently reduces the incidence of hyperextension injuries and symptoms.7,10,15,33-38 However, muscle tension before impact could also contribute to muscle stra in injuries if the muscles involved eccentrically contract to resist head motion that has already begun.6,39-41 The kinematics of the whiplash motion are also changed when the occupant is aware. Kumar et al. state that the initial acceleration of the head in aware conditions was delayed by 25-40 ms.33 This delay is due to the resistance of the backward rotation created by the anterior musculature of the neck. This will create a decrease in the extension of the neck by approximately 30-40% when compared to a relaxed state.7 Conversely, if the subject is in a relaxed state prior to impact, the muscles of the neck do not affect the head-neck-torso kinematics during a rear-end impact and the motion is as described previously.7 Because of the muscle activity onset delay, much or all of the movement in the extension phase of the whiplash motion is already completed before the anterior muscles, specifically the SCM, are maximally activated. Demographics of Selected Participants Human Subjects Compared to Anthropomorphic Dummies and Cadavers In many studies involving automobile cras hes, anthropomorphic dummies, or crash test dummies, are used for safety reasons. However, these tests are generally at much higher speeds than five mph. In addition, anthropomorphi c dummies are designed to replicate the motions observed in a human during high-speed crashes and they do not exhibit the correct response when subjected to a low velocity rear-end collision.4,11,16,18 More specifically, the complicated

PAGE 28

28 intersegmental dynamics of the neck, including vertebral interaction and muscle responses, cannot be reproduced in anthropomorphic dummies.11 The final reason these dummies cannot be used for this type of research is the lack of a pain response. When studying whiplash, analysis of pain is an extremely vital part in analyzing what has happened to the anatomical structures affected.4 Because the dummies are unable to give verbal feedback about pain, injuries associated with whiplash are very difficult to study when using dummies as subjects. Another substitute for in vivo human testing has been the use of human cadavers. This method also has very serious drawbacks when a pplied to low velocity impacts. As opposed to high-speed research where cause of death is usually the desired information, low speed impacts present much more subtle and complicated questions such as the role of muscle activity in the neck in preventing injury.4,11 Obviously, a cadaver has no muscle response and therefore cannot produce accurate results. Likelihood of Injury in Males and Females Although whiplash injuries affect both male s and females, it has been widely reported that women are more susceptible to whiplash injuries, and the associated WAD symptoms last for a longer period of time when compared to men.7,11,14,24,26,42-55 In fact, women have a 40% higher risk than men of sustaining these injuries.26 This increased risk can be attributed to several factors. The first factor is a greater ratio of head mass to neck circumference. This ratio, represented by the cube of the head circum ference divided by the square of the neck circumference, places a greater demand on the muscles of the neck for female occupants.4 The increased muscular demand causes the incidence of whiplash injuries to increase. The next factor contributing to the higher incidence of injury in females is the difference in the alignment of the cervical spine between male and female occupants. The female spine is more prone to kyphosis, or a curvature of the upper spine.7 Because the spine is not aligned in a straight

PAGE 29

29 position, the muscles of the neck are already under more strain than they would be in men. When placed in a situation such as a rear-end collision, the muscles could be fatigued and less able to perform the demands necessary to preven t hyperextension. The final factor contributing to the higher risk in females is muscle strength. On average, females have weaker muscles in the neck region than men.25 When combining this with the higher relative head mass, injuries are much more likely to happen. Because the muscles cannot resist the rearward rotation as well as men, the horizontal acceleration of the head is also higher in women.11,55 Effect of Age on Injury Susceptibility The effect of the whiplash motion on the body changes as an individual ages. Not only are elderly people less physically prepared to withstand the forces created by the whiplash motion, but the injuries suffered are generally more severe, last longer, and have increased symptoms.2,14,51 As people age, more effort is required to maintain muscle mass. If muscle mass is not maintained, the likelihood of severe in jury increases because the muscles can no longer protect the ligaments and vertebrae. In addition, weakening of the bones, or osteoporosis, can occur as one ages. If the cervical vertebrae are weakened, when they are placed under the stresses caused by whiplash, they are more likely to fracture.

PAGE 30

30 A B C D E F Figure 2-1. Stages of whiplash motion. Arrows indicate the direction of motion of the head and seat back. A) Pre-impact position. B) End of phase one. C) End of phase two. D) End of phase three. E) End of phase four. F) End of phase five.

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants Ten participants were tested. All participants were males between the ages of 18 and 35. Participants were recruited from the student popul ation of the University of Florida. Each participant was required to read and sign an informed consent agreement approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Fl orida prior to participation. In addition, each participant was required to fill out a medical health questionnaire (Appendix A). Each participant was involved in three testing sessions, sp aced at least two weeks apart in order to rule out any potential discomfort from the previous session. During each testing session, each participant was subjected to three trials that invol ved one rear-end impact per trial at a velocity of five mph. The only difference between testing sessions was the angle of the seat back. Exclusion criteria included female gender, previous spinal injury, history of severe headaches or migraines, current injuries to the neck or back, previous whiplash injuries, previous diagnosis of a herniated disc or any other disc inju ry, and history of dizziness. Experimental Apparatus Ramp In order to simulate a low velocity rear e nd collision each participant sat on a car seat mounted to a rolling platform (Figure 3-1) that was released and allowed to roll backwards down a wooden ramp until colliding with a fixed wooden ba rrier (Figure 3-2). The ramp was inclined at 10 from horizontal and was 4.6 m (15 ft) long. The height of the ramp was 0.8 m (2.6 ft). In addition, there was a flat 2.44 m (8 ft) long segment attached to the bottom of the ramp that served as a final runway for the seat (Figure 3-2). The ramp was constructed from wooden beams (2 in x 4 in) to create the framework and 1.9 cm (3/4 in) plywood to create the upper

PAGE 32

32 rolling surface. On the surface of the ramp, there were 1.9 cm (3/4 in) tall rails that served to keep the platform for the seat securely in pl ace while it traveled down the ramp. In addition, there were 7.6 cm (3 in) tall guards attached to each rail in order to provide an extra level of safety (Figure 3-3). The ramp was comprised of two segments. The final 2.44 m (8 ft) section of the ramp was held in place with four steel cables attached to the floor in order to prevent rearward movement of the ramp during impact. At the end of the flat segment was an immovable stopping apparatus, consisting of a wooden barrier (Figure 3-2). Seat Platform The car seat, extracted from a 2001 Toyota Coro lla, was securely bolted to a platform that measured 0.9144 m (3 ft) wide by 0.9144 m (3 ft) long by 0.305 m (1 ft) deep. There was also an extension on the platform so the participants co uld rest their feet (Figure 3-1). The extension was the same height relative to the seat as the floor of an automobile. The platform utilized two rows of four Rollerblade 76 mm wheels with SG5 bearings (Nordica, Treviso, Italy), placed on the outside of the platform (Figure 3-1). In addition, there was an interior compartment that allowed for an addition of weight to the platform. This functioned to lower the center of gravity of the platform and prevent backward rotation upon impact. The compartment also allowed the testers to normalize the weight of the platform across subjects. Instrumentation A tri-axial accelerometer (Model CXL10GP3, Crossbow, San Jose, CA) was used to capture acceleration measurements of the head. The accelerometer was connected to EVa RealTime software (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, California). All acceleration data was sampled at 1000 Hz. Data was exported into Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) for reduction. Statistica version 5 (Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) was used for statistical analyses.

PAGE 33

33 Procedure The experimental procedures were the same for all participants and all trials took place in the Biomechanics Lab in the College of Health and Human Performance at the University of Florida. Before the participant arrived, the seat back was set to the appropriate angle. The three angles that were used in this study were 100, 115, and 130 from horizontal, in that order. The participants were not told whic h angle was being tested. Only one angle was tested per day. After signing the informed consent form and f illing out the medical health questionnaire, the participant was weighed. The forms were only f illed out prior to the first visit, however the participant was weighed during each visit. Next, the participant was fitted with the accelerometer that was securely fastened to a mouthpiece (Figure 3-4). In order to normalize the weight of the platform and the test participant, weight was added to the compartment below the seat until the combined weight of the particip ant, rolling platform, and added weight reached 113.6 kg (250 lbs). This constant weight helped to ensure that each trial was as close to five mph as possible. The proper release point that pr oduced the desired speed was determined during pilot testing using motion analysis software. Each participant was then instructed to sit in the seat at the top of the ramp while looking straight ahead keeping his head parallel with th e ramp’s surface and his arms relaxed on his lap throughout the trial. The participant was told to remain relaxed throughout the trial, meaning that he would not tense his muscles before impact. The participant was also instructed to keep his scapulas against the seat. This served to normalize the seating position for all participants. During all trials, the headrest was in the highest position to decrease the chance of neck hyperextension. Upon verification that the participan t is ready, the rolling platform was released from the pre-determined point and the seat began to move down the ramp. After impact with the fixed wooden barrier, the platform came to re st. Throughout the trial, acceleration data was

PAGE 34

34 recorded. Three trials were performed during each testing session. Finally, a follow-up phone call was made at one day, three days, one week, and two weeks post-test. These calls served to monitor the participant’s health and to quantify sore ness, if present, on a graded scale. The pain scale appears in Appendix B56. In the two subsequent sessions the data collection method was the same, however the angle of the seat was changed. The data was analyzed after each session. Data Analysis Acceleration of the Head Acceleration of the head was calculated in g’s, where one g equals an acceleration of 9.81 m/s2, the acceleration on gravity. The peak acceleration in the anterior-posterior and vertical directions was recorded and the resultant acceleration was calculated. The third direction was ignored due to the minimal motion in the lateral direction during the whiplash motion.6,19 Initial output from eVart 4.3 Motion Analysis Software was measured in millivolts. This raw data was exported to Microsoft Excel 2003 and graphed. The graph was used to find peak acceleration in volts. A sample graph has been provided (Figure 3-5). The baseline voltage was then subtracted from the peak voltage in order to quantify the true peak acceleration. After finding this peak acceleration in volts, a conversion factor supplie d by Crossbow allowed for a conversion from volts to g’s. The conversion factors for horizont al and vertical acceleration were 0.098 and 0.101 volts per one g, respectively. Peak horizontal acceleration measured in g’s (a(g)) was calculated using Equation 3-1: a(g) = (voltagemax(V) – voltagebaseline(V)) / 0.098 (3-1) Peak vertical acceleration was calculated using equation 3-2: a(g) = (voltagemax(V) – voltagebaseline(V)) / 0.101 (3-2) This process was repeated for each trial completed. The peak mean horizontal and vertical accelerations for each seat angle we re calculated. In addition, the resultant peak accelerations

PAGE 35

35 were calculated and averaged for each seat angle. Finally, one trial was selected for time-motion analysis. During this process, key moments were picked from the trial and the resultant acceleration, magnitude and direction, were plotted on a graph. This graph shows the severity and direction of acceleration throughout the trial. Pain Scale Participants rated their pain one day, three days, one week, and two weeks post-test. This process was completed for each of the three test sessions. Data was written into Microsoft Excel. Mean pain ratings were calculated for each time interval at each seat angle. Statistical Analysis Acceleration of the Head A repeated measures one-way ANOVA with three levels was used to determine if there was any significant difference in the mean peak acceleration of the head across seat angle. This was done for the horizontal, vertical, and resulta nt acceleration values. A traditional level of significance was used ( = 0.05). Tukey HSD post hoc analyses were performed when necessary. Pain Scale A repeated measures two-way ANOVA (3:seat angle x 4:time interval) was used to determine if there was a significant pain diffe rence among the three seat angles and as time passed post testing. A traditional level of significance was used ( = 0.05). In addition, Tukey HSD post hoc analyses were performed when necessary.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 3-1. Automobile seat mounted on a rolling platform. Figure 3-2. Ramp and stopping apparatus. Figure 3-3. Guard rails on ramp.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 3-4. Accelerometer and mouthpiece. Figure 3-5. Sample horizontal acceleration graphthe vertical axis is measured in millivolts and the horizontal axis is measured in milliseconds.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Participants Nine of the ten participants completed testing at all three seat angles. The horizontal acceleration data for the third trial at 130 for participant five were not recorded due to equipment errors. Mass, height, and age were recorded for all ten participants (Table 4-1). Horizontal Acceleration Following testing, mean peak acceleration values for all three seat angles were calculated (Figure 4-1). A repeated measures one way ANOVA revealed a significant difference when comparing peak horizontal acceleration across the three levels of seat angle (F (2,18) = 27.39, p = 0.000003). Tukey’s HSD post-hoc procedure indicated that horiz ontal acceleration was decreased for the 130 seat position when compared to the 100 position (p = 0.000151). In addition, the horizontal acceleration was also decreased for the 115 seat position when compared to the 100 position (p = 0.000552). Vertical Acceleration The same statistical methods previously men tioned were used for the vertical acceleration data. Mean peak acceleration values can be found in Figure 4-1. No differences in vertical acceleration across seat position were detected (F (2,18) = 3.48, p = 0.0529). Resultant Acceleration Resultant accelerations were calculated usi ng the horizontal and vertical components and applying the Pythagorean theorem. Mean peak resultant acceleration values for each seat angle were then calculated (Figure 4-1). Statistical analyses were the same as described for the horizontal and vertical accelerations Resultant acceleration varied with seat position (F (2,18) = 4.51, p = 0.0258). The mean acceleration values decreased as the seat angle increased

PAGE 39

39 (Figure 4-1). Tukey’s post hoc analysis revealed that the 100 seat position had a higher resultant acceleration than the 130 position (p = 0.0425). The 115 seat position also had a significantly higher resultant acceleration than the 130 seat position (p = 0.0488). Time Motion Analysis A time motion analysis was performed on one selected trial (Participant 3, 100 trial 1). The horizontal and vertical acceleration graphs corresponding to this trial can be found in Figure 4-2. To create the time motion analysis, seven significant points of motion were chosen and the magnitude and direction of the resultant acceleration were calculated and plotted (Figure 4-3). Horizontal and vertical components of the resulta nt accelerations can be found in Table 4-2. There are no data points for the first phase because there is no movement of the head during the first phase, as defined by the previously descri bed five phase whiplash motion. The first two points selected were 50 and 75 ms after th e initial horizontal acceleration of the head, respectively, and were during the middle portion of the second phase of motion. Both of these points have a forward and downward acceleration. In addition, the acceleration is increasing in both directions across the 25 ms time span. At 100 ms, peak horizontal acceleration occurs and phase two is complete. During phase three, the horizontal acceleration is beginning to approach zero g’s at 125 ms. 153 ms after impact, the hor izontal acceleration has changed from forward to backward. Phase three is over 180 ms after impact and the participant is at the peak horizontal acceleration for phase three. This acceleration is directed backwards and down. Finally, at 269 ms, the peak horizontal acceleration during phase four was recorded. The direction of the acceleration is forward and up. At this point in the motion, all relevant accelerations have been completed. Due to this, the fifth phase, or restitution phase, was not included.

PAGE 40

40 Pain Scale The participants subjectively reported pain at four different time intervals that included one day, three days, one week, and two weeks post-test (Appendix B). All ten participants completed the pain ratings at all time intervals for all three seat positions. There were no ratings above a one (no pain) for the last two time interval s. Therefore, only the pain ratings given at one day and three days post-test were used in the statistical analysis. The highest pain rating given by any participant was a four (Participant 7, 130 1 day post-test) and no subject had any long term effects from the impacts. Generally sp eaking, the mean pain rating increased as the seat angle increased (Figure 4-4). In addition, when comparing pain ratings from day one to day three, pain decreased as time passed for the 115 and 130 seat positions while it stayed the same for the 100 seat position (Figure 4-5). Statistical analysis revealed significance when comparing overall pain ratings across time (F (1,9) = 6.43, p = 0.032), with pain decreasing from one day post-test to three days pos t-test. Pain ratings also varied with seat position (F (2,18) = 6.55, p = 0.0073). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reve aled that there were significant increases among the mean pain ratings when comparing the 130 seat position to the 100 position (p = 0.0076) and when comparing the 130 position to the 115 position (p = 0.041), with the 130 position having the higher pain rating in both cases (Figure 4-4). A time x seat position interaction was also detected (F (2,18) = 6.28, p = 0.0085). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test demonstrated that only the 130 seat position showed significance when comparing the pain ratings across both time intervals (Figure 4-5), meaning that pain ratings were significantly worse one day post test when compared to three days post test for that seat position (p = 0.000094).

PAGE 41

41 Table 4-1. Participant characteristics Participant Age (years) Height (m) Mass (kg) 1 21 1.85 90.7 2 21 1.83 70.3 3 21 1.78 76.2 4 25 1.83 96.2 5 23 1.75 85.7 6 22 1.80 78.0 7 22 1.78 102.5 8 19 1.75 69.4 9 28 1.78 84.4 10 22 1.75 65.8 Mean SD 22.40 2.37 1.79 0.035 81.92 11.51 Table 4-2. Acceleration data for time motion analysis Time (ms) Phase of motion Horizontal acceleration (g) Vertical acceleration (g) Resultant acceleration (g) Angle ( ) 50 2 -1.1122 -0.3465 1.1649 17.3 below negative x-axis 75 2 -1.2755 -0.9406 1.5848 36.4 below negative x-axis 100 End of 2 -2.4490 1.1485 2.7049 25.1 above negative x-axis 125 3 -0.5306 1.9010 1.9737 74.4 above negative x-axis 153 3 0.0102 -0.3861 0.3862 88.5 below positive x-axis 180 End of 3 0.5816 -0.3564 0.6821 31.5 below positive x-axis 269 4 -0.3980 0.5644 0.6906 54.8 above negative x-axis Note: For horizontal data, negative was defined as forward acceleration. For vertical data, negative was defined as downward acceleration.

PAGE 42

42 Figure 4-1. Mean horizontal, vertical, and resultant acceleration for all angles. indicates a significant difference between peak horizontal acceleration values when comparing 100 and 115 (p < 0.05). ^ indicates a significan t difference between peak horizontal acceleration values when comparing 100 and 130 (p < 0.05). # indicates a significant difference between peak resultant acceleration values when comparing 100 and 130 (p < 0.05).

PAGE 43

43 Figure 4-2. Horizontal and vertical acceleration for participant three, 100 trial one. For horizontal acceleration, values above and be low the baseline represent anterior and posterior acceleration of the head, respectively. For vertical acceleration, values above and below the baseline repres ent downward and upward acceleration, respectively.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 4-3. Time-motion analysis for participant three, 100 trial one. The first number represents time in milliseconds after impact. The number in parentheses is the resultant acceleration value at that time.

PAGE 45

45 Figure 4-4. Mean pain ratings at each seat pos ition. indicates a significant difference between 100 and 130 (p < 0.05) # indicates a significant difference between 115 and 130 (p < 0.05). Figure 4-5. Mean pain rating interaction with seat position and time. indicates a significant difference between 1 day and 3 days post-test at a seat position of 130 (p < 0.05).

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Horizontal Acceleration In comparison to other studies at similar imp act speeds, the peak horizontal accelerations during this study were slightly lower.12,19 However, because there are no comparative data regarding the kinematics of the head and the contribution of seat back angle to the acceleration of the head, this portion of the discussion is intended to explain these novel data. The data collected during this study suggest th at altering the angle of the seat back can create changes in the horizontal acceleration of th e head during a low velocity rear-end collision. This is shown by the decrease in mean acceleration values as the seat angle was increased (Figure 4-1). When studying the kinematics of the head during a selected trial, the horizontal portion of Figure 4-2 shows only one peak. This peak coincides with the larger of the two vertical peaks and represents the maximum forward acceleration of the head while it is in contact with the headrest. While the head does accelerate downwards after impact, evidenced by the first vertical peak, it does not accelerate horizontally unless the musculature of the neck is activated to resist the rearward motion. During this study, the seat was rolling backwards at approximately five mph until impact. Upon impac t the body continues to move horizontally at that velocity without accelerating until it hits th e headrest or until the muscles fire, whichever comes first. This can be compared to a true rear-end collision where the car moves forward until the seat interacts with a stationary body. This phenomenon explains why the vertical acceleration begins just before the horizontal acceleration. The main difference between the vertical and horizontal motions is that the h ead was already moving horizontally, but had no initial velocity in the vertical direction, thus producing the kinematic differences. During the analysis of this trial it can be estimated that the muscles fired approximately fifteen ms after

PAGE 47

47 impact with the wooden barrier. Although ther e was no electromyographic data collected, the initiation of the horizontal and vertical acceler ation can be approximate d from the time motion analysis (Figure 4-2). This indicates that th e participant was anticipating the impending impact, as this delay is insufficient for a reflex response.7 When discussing differences in accelera tion among seat positions, the horizontal acceleration of the head should be determined by the time it takes for the stopping forces of the muscles and headrest to arrest all horizontal motion, assuming the same v of five mph (acceleration = v / t). Because the 100 seat back angle creates less horizontal distance from the back of the head to the headrest, when compared to a 130 seat back angle, it is fair to conclude that the time it takes for the head to make contact with the headrest is shorter. Because of this, the muscles have less time to react and all or most of the forces created by the impact must be dissipated by the headrest in a shor ter time, thus creating higher peak acceleration values. However, a higher peak acceleration value does not necessarily mean that there will be a higher risk of WAD injuries. A key factor that determines injury is the mechanism used to decelerate the head. The muscles and headrest both act to stop the motion of the head, but the contributions of each cannot be calculated from th e acceleration data collected during this study. However, the contribution of pain in conjunction with the acceleration data may provide some insight and will be discussed later. Vertical Acceleration The vertical acceleration data showed no significance when comparing peak acceleration across the three seat positions. During the trial chosen for analysis, the temporal presentation of the vertical acceleration was very different than the horizontal acceleration and was most likely representative of the other data collected. According to Figure 4-2, the vertical acceleration

PAGE 48

48 began fifteen ms before the horizontal acceleration. In addition, the vertical acceleration had two peaks while the horizontal acceleration only had one true peak. The first, smaller peak in the vertical acceleration represents the initial downwar d motion of the head after the seatback has pushed the torso forward and the cervical spine is forced into extension. The anterior neck muscles are responsible for attempting to counteract the force of the impact. This peak is prior to contact with the headrest. The net vertical acceleration during this time period is downward for one primary reason. Although the anterior musculature of the neck is attempting to slow the head down by producing an upward acceleration, the downward force created by the impact is greater in magnitude, thus the overall accelerati on is still downward. The second, larger peak represents the net upward acceleration imparted by the combination of the headrest and the continuing action of the anterior musculature. During this portion, the resultant upward force is greater than the downward force remaining from the impact, thus the acceleration vector points upward. This peak is larger because the headrest and muscles are providing resistant forces, as opposed to just the muscles. However, although th e second peak is larger, I believe the first peak is where an injury is more likely to occur, due to the higher initial load on the muscles. Finally, because there has been no significant differ ence found when comparing peak vertical accelerations across the three seat positions, it can be concluded that vertical motion during whiplash is not influenced by seat position. In comparison with other studies, peak vertical accelerations in this study were slightly lower, with previous studies showing peak vertical accelerations ranging from 2.4 to 3.0 g’s.12,13 Resultant Acceleration As shown by the data in Figure 4-1, the resultant acceleration of the head does change as the angle of the seat back is altered. This diffe rence may be attributed to the following. During a rear-end collision, the head may undergo two subphases during the initial rearward rotation, or

PAGE 49

49 phase two of the whiplash motion. The first sub-phase is prior to contact with the headrest and the second is initiated with contact between the he ad and headrest and terminated when rearward rotation ceases. What occurs during the first sub-phase may be crucial to the injury risk encountered by the driver and the front row passenger. During this study, the overall v was the same for all trials. However, the final velocity before impact with the headrest, or the initial velocity upon impact with the headrest, was most likely different across the seat positions. As the head was moving backwards and downwards relative to the body, the 130 seat angle could have allowed the muscles to reach higher activity levels due to the increased horizontal distance and time required, and thus would create a lower final velocity before impact when comparing to the 100 seat angle. The lower final velocity is simply due to the increased deceleration caused by the muscle force. Because the initial velocity on impact with the headrest is lower at the 130 seat angle, the deceleration creat ed by the headrest will be reduced while the deceleration created by the musculature is increased. Conversely, if the seat is in the 100 position, the resultant peak acceleration is higher, but the headrest contributes more retarding force and the muscles contribute a lower retarding force. Therefore, in accordance with previous work, the headrest should be as close to the back of the head as po ssible in order to avoid hyperextension injuries of the neck.1,14,19,22,24,26,27 Time Motion Analysis The main function of the time motion analysis was to verify the motion of the head throughout the whiplash motion during this study. As seen in Figure 4-3, the direction and magnitude of acceleration was constantly cha nging throughout the motion. The first point selected was 65 and 50 ms after initiation of the vertical and horizontal accelerations, respectively, and occurred during phase two. At this time, the head had a forward acceleration of

PAGE 50

50 1.11 g’s in combination with a downward acceleration of 0.35 g’s (Table 4-2). The anterior musculature of the neck, specifically the SCM, was responsible for slowing the head down. Although the net vertical acceleration was downwar ds, the musculature wa s acting to accelerate the head upward, against the motion of the head, however the force of the impact was larger than the muscle force. This combination created a net downward force and acceleration. The next point of interest is at 87 ms after initiation of horizontal acceleration and is also in phase two. It is at this moment that the head made initial contact with the headrest. Notable occurrences include a transition from downward to upward vertical acceleration and a continuing increase in the horizontal acceleration. The third major poi nt during phase two was 100 ms after initiation of the horizontal acceleration and represented the peak horizontal acceleration throughout the entire trial. This point also represents the end of phase two. Perhaps the most important time span during this phase was the 13 ms in which the head was in contact with the headrest. It was during this short time that the head experienced the most severe g forces in all dimensions. However, the headrest is primarily responsible for these high g forces, thus WAD injuries during contact with the headrest are unlikely. In a ddition, the g forces are not high enough to cause significant intracranial injury. Phase three was characterized by far less severe g forces. The first notable point in phase three occurs at 153 ms. Horizontal acceleration has just crossed zero g’s and is now 0.01 g’s in a backward direction, meaning that the posterior musculature has been activated and is attempting to terminate the forward motion of the head created by the rebound off of the headrest, thus producing a backward acceleration. Vertical acceleration at this point is 0.3861 g’s downward. The peak horizontal acceleration occurred 180 ms af ter the initial horizontal acceleration, or 80

PAGE 51

51 ms after phase three began and had a value of 0.5816 g’s. It is also at this time that phase three was completed. The final point of interest occurs 269 ms after initial horizontal acceleration and is in phase four. The head had passed its equilibrium, or upright, point and was forced into slight extension. Peak horizontal acceleration was 0.40 g’s forward and peak vertical acceleration was 0.56 g’s upward. Overall, the results of this time motion analysis were comparable to previous work done by McConnell, et al.13 The impact speed of both trials was very similar, and the overall motion of the head during this study seemed to follow the previously defined five stage motion associated with whiplash.3,6,7 Pain Using the pain data in conjunction with the horizontal and resultant acceleration data, one can infer that the muscles were contributing more during the trials with the seat reclined to 130 This is because there were significant differences in overall pain ratings when comparing 100 with 130 and when comparing 115 with 130 (Figure 4-4), with the higher pain rating means corresponding to the higher seat angles. Therefore, the increased time allowed the muscle to increase its contribution and spread the force more equally among the muscles and headrest, creating pain in some participants, while decreasing the headrest’s contribution. The pain data also show that the 130 seat position was the only position that demonstrated a significant difference in pain from one day post-test to th ree days post-test, which would suggest a more significant muscle injury and increased muscle contribution during the testing at 130 Other structures, such as the vertebrae, intervertebral discs, and ligaments are also at increased risk when the seat is more reclined. If the muscle s are unable to absorb the complete force of the

PAGE 52

52 impact prior to contact with the headrest, the force will be transmitted to other anatomical structures. The muscles will no longer be able to resist the extension motion of the cervical spine and more serious hyperextension injuries become more likely. Limitations This project had limitations that should be a ddressed while interpreting the results and for designing future studies. Due to injury risk, only males between the ages of 18 and 35 were approved to participate by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida, thus it cannot be assumed that the results apply to the whole population. Second, there was no plausible way to ensure that the participants were relaxed prior to impact. Because the platform was rolling backwards into a fixed barrier, the particip ant could predict when the impact would occur. This is supported by the time motion analysis of the selected trial. There are several ways to correct this in the future. Electromyographic r ecording devices for the musculature of the neck could be used to determine exactly when the mu scles fired relative to impact. In addition, the barrier could move forward into a stationary seat platform with all visual and auditory cues removed from the environment. This technique could be combined with random dummy trials, or trials in which there is no contact between the barrier and the platform. Third, sample size is a concern. A larger sample size would produce more reliable results. Fourth, only one seat model was used. For better results, seats from all major car manufacturers could have been used. Fifth, only three angles were tested during this study. To truly determine the best combination of comfort and safety, seat positions in increments of 5 should be tested in further studies. Sixth, the headrest was at the maximum height for all subjects. Due to differences in height among the participants it cannot be assumed that all participants made contact with the same part of the headrest. Finally, the apparatus could have been substituted with real automobiles to create a true bumper to bumper impact.

PAGE 53

53 Conclusions The data collected during testing show that horizontal and resultant acceleration are significantly altered when the orientation of the seat back is changed from 100 to 130 In addition, the pain felt by the participants increases when comparing 100 and 130 and when comparing 115 to 130 These results support the current trend in automobile manufacturing to produce active head restraints. If the head restraint moves forward as the seat is reclined backwards, it is possible to maintain the same horizontal distance from the back of the head to the front of the headrest, thus eliminating much of the muscle force required to arrest the motion of the head during a low velocity rear-end collis ion. However, much of the population does not own an automobile with this capability. Therefore, it is recommended that a seat position of 100 is used in order to minimize risk of injury from a rear-end collision when operating an automobile. Finally, I believe that the previously defined five stage whiplash motion3,6,7 should be modified to a six stage motion including the two sub-phases previously discussed. Although the rearward rotation of the head is characteristic of both sub-phases, the injury risk and decelerating mechanisms are different.

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX A MEDICAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE Subject Number: ____________ Age: ___________________ (must be between 18 and 35 to be eligible) Height: _________________ Weight: _________________ Sex: M / F Please answer yes or no to questions #1-11. If you answer “yes” to any of the following questions (1-7,10), you will not be eligible for this study. If you answered “no” to questions 8 or 9, you will not be eligible for this study. 1. Have you ever had a spinal injury of any kind? 2. Do you suffer from severe headaches or migraines? 3. Do you currently have any injury to your neck or back? 4. Have you ever had “whiplash” before? 5. Have you ever had a herniated disc or any other disc injury? 6. Do you suffer form dizziness? 7. Are you currently taking any pain medications? 8. Do you have a pain-free range of motion of your cervical spine? 9. Can you move your neck freely in all directions? 10. Do you suffer from any long standing neck pain? 11. Please list any other medical problems that you think would prevent you from participating. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________.

PAGE 55

55 APPENDIX B SORENESS SCALE Subject Number: ___________ Session #: _______ Date: _____________ Directions: Rate your level of soreness on a 1-10 scale. 1 = no pain 3 = slightly painful 5 = moderately painful 8 = very painful 10 = extremely painful ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 day post-test Date:________________ Level of Soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3 days post-test Date:________________ Level of Soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 week post-test Date:________________ Level of Soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 weeks post-test Date:________________ Level of soreness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAGE 56

56 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Svensson M, Lovsund P, Haland Y, Larsson S. The influence of seat-back and head-restraint properties on the head-neck motion during rear impact. Proceedings of the International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts 1993; 395-406. 2. Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Clinical review: whiplash injury. Pain 1994; 58: 283-307. 3. McConnell WE, Howard RP, Poppel JV. Human head and neck kinematic after low velocity rear-end impacts: understanding “whiplash”. In: 39th Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings: SAE No 952724 1995: 215-238. 4. Brault J, Wheeler J, Siegmund G, Brault E. C linical response of human subjects to rear-end automobile collisions. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998; 79: 72-80. 5. Yoganandan N, Pintar F, Cusick J. Biomechani cal analyses of whiplash injuries using an experimental model. Accident Anal ysis and Prevention 2002; 34: 663-671. 6. Howard R, Bowles A, Guzman H, Krenrich S. Head, neck, and ma ndible dynamics generated by ‘whiplash’. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1998; 30(4): 525-534. 7. Ono K, Kaneoka K, Wittek A, Kajzer J. Cervical injury mechanism based on the analysis of human cervical vertebral motion and head-neck -torso kinematics during low speed rear impacts. In: 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings: SAE No 973340 1997: 339-356. 8. Harrison DD, Harrison SO, Croft AC, Harrison DE, Troyanovich SJ. Sitting Biomechanics, Part II: Optimal Car Driver’s Seat and Optimal Driver’s Spinal Model. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2000; 23(1): 37-47. 9. Severy DM, Mathewson JH. Automobile barrier and rear-end collision performance. Society of Automotive Engineers summer meeting, Atlantic City, NJ, 1958: June 8-13. 10. Severy DM, Mathewson JH, Bechtol CO. Controlled automobile rear-end collisions, an investigation of related e ngineering and mechanical phe nomenon. Canadian Services Medical Journal 1955; 11: 727-758. 11. Siegmund GP, King DJ, Lawren ce JM, Wheeler JB, Brault JR, Smith TA. Head/neck kinematic response of human subjects in low-sp eed rear-end collisions. SAE technical paper 973341 1997: 357-385. 12. West DH, Gough JP, Harper TK. Low speed rear-end collision testing using human subjects. Accident Reconstruction Journal 1993; 5(3): 22-26. 13. McConnell WE, Howard RP, Guzman HM, Bomar JB, Raddian JH, Bendict V, Smith HL, Hatsell CP. Analysis of human test subject ki nematic responses to low velocity rear end impacts. SAE paper No 930889 1993.

PAGE 57

57 14. Minton R, Murray P, Stephenson W, Galasko CSB. Whiplash injury – are current head restraints doing their job?. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 177-185. 15. Ryan GA, Taylor GW, Moore VM, Dolinis J. Neck strain in car occupants: the influence of crash-related factors on initial severity. Me dical Journal of Australia 1993; 159: 651-656. 16. Zuby DS, Vann T, Lund AK, Morris CR. Crash test evaluation of whiplash injury risk. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 99SC17 1999. 17. Anderson R, Welcher J, Szabo T, Eubanks J, Haight WR. Effect of braking on human occupant and vehicle kinematics in low speed rear-end collisions. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 980298 1998. 18. Szabo TJ, Welcher JB. Human subject kinema tics and electromyographic activity during low speed rear impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 962432 1996. 19. Welcher JB, Szabo TJ. Relationships between seat properties and human subject kinematics in rear impact tests. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2001; 33: 289-304. 20. Lundell B, Jakobsson L, Alfredsson B, Jernstrm, Isaksson-Hellman I. Guidelines for and the design of a car seat concept for improved protection against neck injuries in rear end car impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 980301 1998. 21. Watanabe Y, Ichikawa H, Kayama O. Relati onships between occupant motion and seat characteristics in low-speed rear impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 199901-0635 1999. 22. Croft AC, Herring P, Freeman MD, Haneline MT. The neck injury criterion: future considerations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2002; 34: 247-255. 23. Hosea TM, Simon SR, Delatizky J, Wong MA, Hsieh CC. Myoelectric analysis of the paraspinal musculature in relation to automobile driving. Spine 1986; 11: 928-936. 24. Farmer CM, Wells JK, Werner JV. Relationship of head restraint positioning to driver neck injury in rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1999; 31: 719-728. 25. Siegmund GP, Heinrichs BE, Wheeler JB. The in fluence of head restraint and occupant factors on peak head/neck kinematics in low-sp eed rear-end collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1999; 31: 393-407. 26. Viano D, Gargan M. Headrest position during normal driving: implication to neck injury risk in rear crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1996; 28(6): 665-674. 27. Maher J. Report investigating the importance of head restraint positioning in reducing neck injury in rear impact. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 299-305.

PAGE 58

58 28. Severy D. Engineering studies of motorist injury exposures from rear-end collisions. Trauma 1970; 12(2): 81-106. 29. Nygren A, Gustafsson H, Tingvall C. Effects of different types of head restraints in rear-end collisions. 10th International Conference on Experiment al Safety Vehicles, Oxford, England, 1985: 85-90. 30. Lawrence JM, Siegmund GP. Seat back and head restraint response during low-speed rearend automobile collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 219-232. 31. Viano D. Influence of seatback angle on occ upant dynamics in simula ted rear-end impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 922521 1992. 32. Thomas P, Bradford M. The nature and source of the head injuries sustained by restrained front-seat car occupants in frontal collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1995; 27(4): 561-570. 33. Kumar S, Narayan Y, Amell T. Role of awareness in head-neck acceleration in low velocity rear-end impacts. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2000; 32: 233-241. 34. Emori R, Horiguchi J. Whiplash in low speed vehicle collisions. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 900542 1990. 35. Mertz HJ, Patrick LM. Strength and response of the human neck. In: Proceedings of the 15th Stapp Car Crash Conference. Coronado, California: Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 710855 1971: 207-255. 36. Ryan GA, Taylor GW, Moore VM, Dolinis J. Neck strain in car occupants: injury status after 6 months and crash-related factors. Injury 1994; 25: 533-537. 37. States J, Korn M, Masengill J. The enigma of whiplash injuries. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the American Associ ation for Automotive Medicine 1969: 83-108. 38. Sturzenegger M, DiStefano G, Radanov BP, Schnidrig A. Presenting symptoms and signs after whiplash injury: the influence of accident mechanisms. Neurology 1994; 44: 688-693. 39. Brault J, Siegmund G, Wheeler J. Whiplash injury biomechanics: cer vical electromyographic response and influence on whiplash dynamics. Whiplash: Compendium of Abstracts 1998; SP-1406: 25. 40. Elson L. The jolt syndrome – muscle dysfunction following low-velocity impact. Pain Management 1990; November/December: 317-326. 41. Szabo TJ, Welcher JB. Human subject responses to various acceleration fields. Low Speed Collision TOPTEC (SAE), Richmond, BC, August 1996.

PAGE 59

59 42. Balla JI. The late whiplash syndrome. Aust. N.Z. Journal of Surgery 1980; 50(6): 610-614. 43. Bring G, BjornstigU, Westman G. Gender patterns in minor head and neck injuries: an analysis of casualty register data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1996; 28: 359-370. 44. Hohl M. Soft-tissue injuries of the neck in automobile accidents. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1974; 56A: 1675-1682. 45. Kahane CJ. An evaluation of head restraintsfederal motor vehicle safety standard 202 (DOT HS-806 108). US Department of Transporta tion, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 1982. 46. Krafft M, Thomas A, Nygren A, Lie A, Tingva ll C. Whiplash associated disorderFactors influencing the incidence of rear-end collisions. In: Proceedings of the 15th ESV Conference. Melbourne, Australia: Paper No 96-S9-O-09 1996: 319-326. 47. Lvsund P. Neck injuries in rear end collisions among front and rear seat occupants. Proceedings of International IRCOBI Conference Biomechanics of Impacts 1988: 319-325. 48. Minton R, Murray P, Pitcher M, Galasko CSB. Causative factors in whiplash injury: implications for current seat and head restrain t design. Proceedings of International IRCOBI Conference on Biomechanics of Impacts 1997: 207-222. 49. Morris A, Thomas P. A study of soft tissue neck injuries in the UK. Proceedings of the 15th ESV Conference May 1996; Paper No. 96-S9-O-08: 1412-1425. 50. O’Neill B, Haddon W, Kelley AB, Sorenson WW. Au tomobile head restraints: Frequency of neck injury insurance claims in relation to th e presence of head restraints. American Journal of Public Health 1972; March: 399-406. 51. Otremski I, Marsh JL, Wilde BR, McLardy Smith PD, Newman RJ. Soft tissue cervical spinal injuries in motor vehicle accidents. Injury 1989; 20: 349-351. 52. Otte D, Pohlemann T, Blauth M. Significance of soft tissue neck injuries AIS1 in the accident scene, and deformation, characteristics of cars with delta-V up to 10 km/h. Proceedings of the International IRCOBI C onference on the Biomechanics of Impacts 1997: 265-83. 53. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E. Scientific monograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash associated disorders: redefining ‘whiplash’ and its management. Spine 1995; 20: 8. 54. States J, Balcerak J, Williams J. Injury frequency and head restraint effectiveness in rear end impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 720967 1972.

PAGE 60

60 55. Van den Kroonenberg A, Philippens M, Cappon H, Wismans J. Human head-neck response during low-speed rear end impacts. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE No 983158 1998. 56. Cassidy J, Carroll L, Cote P, Frank J. Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation benefit whiplash recovery? Results of a population-based incidence cohort study. Spine 2007; 32: 126-31.

PAGE 61

61 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Martin Charles Hillier was born in 1981, in A bbekerk, Netherlands. He was raised by English parents and lived in Holland until the age of five, when he moved to New Jersey. Martin immediately became involved in soccer, a life-long l ove. At the age of 10 Martin moved to Boca Raton, Florida, where he spent the next eight years of his life. While there, he attended Spanish River High School where he excelle d in athletics and academics. Martin was later accepted into the University of Florida, where he spent his college years, without a doubt the years that defined him as a person. While there he graduated with a B.S. in exercise and sport sciences and an M.S. in applied physiology and kinesiology. Martin al so has an older sister and a younger sister who attends or has attended the Univers ity of Florida. His other sibling, Robert, is training to be a law enforcement officer. Martin’s years in Gainesville were most memorable because of his wife. He met Jill Megan Binkley on July 4, 2002, and they were married on July 8, 2006. Martin and Jill currently live in Saint Augustine, Florida. They are both teachers and they are avid travelers. Jill teaches 4th grade and Martin teaches IB physics. Jill plans to return to Gainesville to earn her doctorate degree and Mart in plans to become involved in the accident reconstruction field in the near future.