Examination of Reaction Time Deficits Following Concussion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Reaction time (RT) deficits are reported following concussion, but it is unknown when these deficits normalize to pre-injury status. It is also unclear how factors such as RT measurement technique and participant characteristics influence post-concussion RT.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to (1) characterize acute post-concussion (0–3 days) RT impairments, (2) examine RT recovery over time, and (3) explore moderating factors related to acute RT impairment following concussion.

Methods

Database searches (PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCOhost) were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for articles published in English from January 2002 to March 2019. Studies compared baseline-to-post-injury RT within individuals (within-subject) and/or RT in concussed individuals to non-concussed controls (between-subject). Sixty studies met inclusion criteria, reporting on a total of 9688 participants with 214 discrete RT effects (Hedges’ d; between-subject: N = 29, k = 129; within-subject: N = 42, k = 85). Of the 214 effects, 93 occurred in the acute (0–3 days) post-injury timeframe (k = 47 between-subject). Numerous demographic [sex, age, concussion history, population type (athlete, military, and general population), athlete level (high school, college), and sport], and method-based (RT test and measure type, computerized neurocognitive testing platform, concussion definition, and time post-injury) moderators were examined for mean effect influence. Mixed-effects multi-level modeling with restricted-maximum-likelihood estimation was used to account for nested effects and high heterogeneity for the pooled effect size (D+).

Results

Significant medium-magnitude RT deficits were observed acutely for between- (D+ = − 0.7279, 95% CI − 0.9919, − 0.4639, I2 = 88.66, p < 0.0001) and within-subject (D+ = − 0.7472, 95% CI − 0.9089, − 0.5855, I2 = 89.21, p < 0.0001) effect models. RT deficits were present at the sub-acute and intermediate-term timeframes for between-subject effects (sub-acute: D+ = − 0.5655, 95% CI − 0.6958, − 0.4352, p < 0.0001; intermediate-term: D+ = − 0.3219, 95% CI − 0.5988, − 0.0450, p = 0.0245). No significant RT mean effect was observed for the between-subject model at the long-term timeframe, indicating RT recovery among concussed participants relative to controls (D+ = 0.3505, 95% CI − 0.4787, 1.1797, p = 0.3639). Sex was a significant moderator for between-subject effects, with every 1% male sample size increase demonstrating − 0.0171 (95% CI − 0.0312, − 0.0029, p = 0.0193) larger RT deficits. Within-subject effect models resulted in RT measure type (simple: [D+ = − 0.9826] vs. mixed: [D+ = − 0.6557], p = 0.0438) and computerized neurocognitive testing platforms (ANAM: [D+ = − 0.3735] vs. HeadMinder CRI: [D+ = − 1.4799] vs. ImPACT: [D+ = − 0.6749], p = 0.0004) having significantly different RT-deficit magnitudes. No other moderators produced significantly different RT-deficit magnitudes (between-subject: [p ≥ 0.0763], within-subject: [p ≥ 0.1723]).

Conclusions

Robust RT deficits were observed acutely following concussion. Minimal magnitude differences were noted when comparing between- and within-subject effects, suggesting that pre-injury baselines may not add clinical value in determining post-injury RT impairment. RT deficits persisted up till the intermediate-term (21–59 days post-injury) timeframe and indicate lingering deficits exist. Mean effect size differences were observed between RT measure types and computerized neurocognitive testing platforms; however, all categories displayed negative effects consistent with impaired RT following concussion. Clinical interpretation suggests that measuring RT post-concussion is more important than considering the RT method employed so long as reliable and valid tools are used. PROSPERO Registration #CRD42019119323.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its Electronic Supplementary Material).

References

  1. 1.

    McCrory P, Meeuwisse W, Dvorak J, Aubry M, Bailes J, Broglio S, et al. Consensus statement on concussion in sport—the 5th international conference on concussion in sport held in Berlin, October 2016. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:838–47. (bjsports-2017-097699).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Zuckerman SL, Kerr ZY, Yengo-Kahn A, Wasserman E, Covassin T, Solomon GS. Epidemiology of sports-related concussion in NCAA athletes from 2009–2010 to 2013–2014: incidence, recurrence, and mechanisms. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2654–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rosenthal JA, Foraker RE, Collins CL, Comstock RD. National high school athlete concussion rates from 2005–2006 to 2011–2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1710–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Voss JD, Connolly J, Schwab KA, Scher AI. Update on the epidemiology of concussion/mild traumatic brain injury. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2015;19:32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cancelliere C, Coronado VG, Taylor CA, Xu L. Epidemiology of isolated versus nonisolated mild traumatic brain injury treated in emergency departments in the United States, 2006–2012: sociodemographic characteristics. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017;32:E37–46.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Resch JE, Brown CN, Schmidt J, Macciocchi SN, Blueitt D, Cullum CM, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical measures of sport concussion: three tests are better than one. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2016;2:e000012.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    CARE Consortium Investigators, Garcia G-GP, Broglio SP, Lavieri MS, McCrea M, McAllister T. Quantifying the value of multidimensional assessment models for acute concussion: an analysis of data from the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium. Sports Med. 2018;48:1739–49.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schmidt JD, Register-Mihalik JK, Mihalik JP, Kerr ZY, Guskiewicz KM. Identifying impairments after concussion: normative data versus individualized baselines. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1621–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lempke LB, Schmidt JD, Lynall RC. Athletic trainers’ concussion-assessment and -management practices: an update. J Athl Train. 2020;51:17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Coldren RL, Russell ML, Parish RV, Dretsch M, Kelly MP. The ANAM lacks utility as a diagnostic or screening tool for concussion more than 10 days following injury. Mil Med. 2012;177:179–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kelly MP, Coldren RL, Parish RV, Dretsch MN, Russell ML. Assessment of acute concussion in the combat environment. Arch Clin Neuropsychol Off J Natl Acad Neuropsychol. 2012;27:375–88.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Nelson LD, LaRoche AA, Pfaller AY, Lerner EB, Hammeke TA, Randolph C, et al. Prospective, head-to-head study of three computerized neurocognitive assessment tools (CNTs): reliability and validity for the assessment of sport-related concussion. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016;22:24–37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Schatz P, Pardini J, Lovell M, Collins M, Podell K. Sensitivity and specificity of the ImPACT Test Battery for concussion in athletes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21:91–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gualtieri C, Johnson L. Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21:623–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Farnsworth JL, Dargo L, Ragan BG, Kang M. Reliability of computerized neurocognitive tests for concussion assessment: a meta-analysis. J Athl Train [Internet]. 2017. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-52.6.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Eckner JT, Lipps DB, Kim H, Richardson JK, Ashton-Miller JA. Can a clinical test of reaction time predict a functional head-protective response? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:382–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Anstey K, Wood J, Lord S, Walker J. Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clin Psychol Rev. 2005;25:45–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Eckner JT, Kutcher JS, Broglio SP, Richardson JK. Effect of sport related concussion on clinically measured simple reaction time. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:112–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Howell DR, Stillman A, Buckley TA, Berkstresser B, Wang F, Meehan WP 3rd. The utility of instrumented dual-task gait and tablet-based neurocognitive measurements after concussion. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21:358–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Putukian M, Riegler K, Amalfe S, Bruce J, Echemendia R. Preinjury and postinjury factors that predict sports-related concussion and clinical recovery time. Clin J Sport Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000705.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Eckner JT, Kutcher JS, Richardson JK. Effect of concussion on clinically measured reaction time in nine NCAA Division I collegiate athletes: a preliminary study. PM R. 2011;3:212–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lynall RC, Blackburn JT, Guskiewicz KM, Marshall SW, Plummer P, Mihalik JP. Reaction time and joint kinematics during functional movement in recently concussed individuals. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:880–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Vartiainen MV, Holm A, Lukander J, Lukander K, Koskinen S, Bornstein R, et al. A novel approach to sports concussion assessment: computerized multilimb reaction times and balance control testing. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2016;38:293–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    CNS Vital Signs. CNS vital signs brief interpretation guide [Internet]. 2017. https://www.cnsvs.com/WhitePapers/CNSVS-BriefInterpretationGuide.pdf. Cited 2 Apr 2018.

  25. 25.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    National Institute of Health Research. PROSPERO—international prospective register of systematic reviews [Internet]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed 12 Apr 2018.

  27. 27.

    Aubry M, Cantu R, Dvorak J, Graf-Baumann T, Johnston K, Kelly J, et al. Summary and agreement statement of the first international conference on concussion in sport, Vienna 2001. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36:6–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [Internet]. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv. 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/front_page.htm. Accessed 12 Mar 2018.

  29. 29.

    Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    RStudio Team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R [Internet]. Boston: RStudio, Inc.; 2016. https://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.

  33. 33.

    Iverson GL, Gardner AJ, Terry DP, Ponsford JL, Sills AK, Broshek DK, et al. Predictors of clinical recovery from concussion: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:941–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wilson KE, Dishman RK. Personality and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pers Individ Differ. 2015;72:230–42.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Del Rossi G. Evaluating the recovery curve for clinically assessed reaction time after concussion. J Athl Train. 2017;52:766–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Collie A, Makdissi M, Maruff P, Bennell K, McCrory P, Collie A, et al. Cognition in the days following concussion: comparison of symptomatic versus asymptomatic athletes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77:241–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Catena RD, van Donkelaar P, Chou L-S. Cognitive task effects on gait stability following concussion. Exp Brain Res. 2007;176:23–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Heitger MH, Jones RD, Dalrymple-Alford JC, Frampton CM, Ardagh MW, Anderson TJ. Motor deficits and recovery during the first year following mild closed head injury. Brain Inj. 2006;20:807–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Internet]. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Cited 3 Dec 2018.

  40. 40.

    Oremus M, Oremus C, Hall GBC, McKinnon MC. Inter-rater and test–retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle–Ottawa Scales. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4):e001368. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Higgins JPT, Simon GT, Deeks JJ. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Cheung MW-L. A model for integrating fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses into structural equation modeling. Psychol Methods. 2008;13:182–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cheung MW-L. Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychol Methods. 2014;19:211–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:638.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002–d40024002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Broglio SP, Rettmann A, Greer J, Brimacombe S, Moore B, Narisetty N, et al. Investigating a novel measure of brain networking following sports concussion. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37:714–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Howell D, Osternig L, Van Donkelaar P, Mayr U, Chou L-S. Effects of concussion on attention and executive function in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:1030–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Mayr U, LaRoux C, Rolheiser T, Osternig L, Chou L-S, van Donkelaar P. Executive dysfunction assessed with a task-switching task following concussion. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e91379.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Hammeke TA, McCrea M, Coats SM, Verber MD, Durgerian S, Flora K, et al. Acute and subacute changes in neural activation during the recovery from sport-related concussion. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013;19:863–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Howell DR, Osternig LR, Chou L-S. Detection of acute and long-term effects of concussion: dual-task gait balance control versus computerized neurocognitive test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:1318–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    McCrea M, Prichep L, Powell MR, Chabot R, Barr WB. Acute effects and recovery after sport-related concussion: a neurocognitive and quantitative brain electrical activity study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2010;25:283–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Nelson LD, Furger RE, Gikas P, Lerner EB, Barr WB, Hammeke TA, et al. Prospective, head-to-head study of three computerized neurocognitive assessment tools part 2: utility for assessment of mild traumatic brain injury in emergency department patients. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2017;23:293–303.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    O’Connor KL, Baker MM, Dalton SL, Dompier TP, Broglio SP, Kerr ZY. Epidemiology of sport-related concussions in high school athletes: National Athletic Treatment, Injury and Outcomes Network (NATION), 2011–2012 through 2013–2014. J Athl Train. 2017;52:175–85.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Wasserman E, Kerr ZY, Zuckerman SL, Covassin T. Epidemiology of sports-related concussions in national collegiate athletic association athletes from 2009–2010 to 2013–2014: symptom prevalence, symptom resolution time, and return-to-play time. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:226–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Howell DR, Lynall RC, Buckley TA, Herman DC. Neuromuscular control deficits and the risk of subsequent injury after a concussion: a scoping review. Sports Med. 2018;48:1097–115.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Kamins J, Bigler E, Covassin T, Henry L, Kemp S, Leddy JJ, et al. What is the physiological time to recovery after concussion? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:935–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Vagnozzi R, Signoretti S, Cristofori L, Alessandrini F, Floris R, Isgro E, et al. Assessment of metabolic brain damage and recovery following mild traumatic brain injury: a multicentre, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic study in concussed patients. Brain. 2010;133:3232–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Meier TB, Bellgowan PSF, Singh R, Kuplicki R, Polanski DW, Mayer AR. Recovery of cerebral blood flow following sports-related concussion. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:530.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:279–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Lempke LB, Johnson RS, Schmidt JD, Lynall RC. Clinical versus functional reaction time: implications for postconcussion management. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    McPherson AL, Nagai T, Webster KE, Hewett TE. Musculoskeletal injury risk after sport-related concussion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2018;47:1754–62. (036354651878590).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Buckley TA, Howard CM, Oldham JR, Lynall RC, Swanik CB, Getchell N. No clinical predictors of postconcussion musculoskeletal injury in college athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Abbassi E, Sirmon-Taylor B. Recovery progression and symptom resolution in sport-related mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2017;31:1667–733.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Broglio SP, Macciocchi SN, Ferrara MS. Neurocognitive performance of concussed athletes when symptom free. J Athl Train. 2007;42:504–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Covassin T, Elbin RJ, Harris W, Parker T, Kontos A. The role of age and sex in symptoms, neurocognitive performance, and postural stability in athletes after concussion. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1303–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Day J, Hanson M, Reding M. Neurocognitive testing following resolution of concussion symptoms. Int J Athl Ther Train. 2012;17:29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Kontos AP, Elbin RJ, Lau B, Simensky S, Freund B, French J, et al. Posttraumatic migraine as a predictor of recovery and cognitive impairment after sport-related concussion. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:1497–504.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Schatz P, Glatts C. “Sandbagging” baseline test performance on ImPACT, without detection, is more difficult than it appears. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;28:236–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Anderson MN, Lempke LB, Bell DH, Lynall RC, Schmidt JD. The ability of CNS vital signs to detect coached sandbagging performance during concussion baseline testing: a randomized control trial. Brain Inj. 2020;0:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Covassin T, Moran R, Wilhelm K. Concussion symptoms and neurocognitive performance of high school and college athletes who incur multiple concussions. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2885–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Covassin T, Elbin RJ, Deitrick JM, Whalen DJ. Effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on neurocognitive performance and symptoms in concussed athletes. Athl Train Sports Health Care J Pract Clin. 2013;5:254–60.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    CARE Consortium Investigators, Broglio SP, Harezlak J, Katz B, Zhao S, McAllister T, et al. Acute sport concussion assessment optimization: a prospective assessment from the CARE consortium. Sports Med [Internet]. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01155-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Kontos AP, Braithwaite R, Dakan S, Elbin RJ. Computerized neurocognitive testing within 1 week of sport-related concussion: meta-analytic review and analysis of moderating factors. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014;20:324–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Haran FJ, Dretsch MN, Slaboda JC, Johnson DE, Adam OR, Tsao JW. Comparison of baseline-referenced versus norm-referenced analytical approaches for in-theatre assessment of mild traumatic brain injury neurocognitive impairment. Brain Inj. 2016;30:280–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Hutchison M, Comper P, Mainwaring L, Richards D. The influence of musculoskeletal injury on cognition: implications for concussion research. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:2331–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Louey AG, Cromer JA, Schembri AJ, Darby DG, Maruff P, Makdissi M, et al. Detecting cognitive impairment after concussion: sensitivity of change from baseline and normative data methods using the CogSport/Axon cognitive test battery. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;29:432–41.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Nelson LD, Furger RE, Ranson J, Tarima S, Hammeke TA, Randolph C, et al. Acute clinical predictors of symptom recovery in emergency department patients with uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury or non-traumatic brain injuries. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35:249–59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Pearce AJ, Hoy K, Rogers MA, Corp DT, Davies CB, Maller JJ, et al. Acute motor, neurocognitive and neurophysiological change following concussion injury in Australian amateur football. A prospective multimodal investigation. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18:500–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Register-Mihalik JK, Guskiewicz KM, Mihalik JP, Schmidt JD, Kerr ZY, McCrea MA. Reliable change, sensitivity, and specificity of a multidimensional concussion assessment battery: implications for caution in clinical practice. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013;28:274–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Sosnoff JJ, Broglio SP, Hillman CH, Ferrara MS. Concussion does not impact intraindividual response time variability. Neuropsychology. 2007;21:796–802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Fazio VC, Lovell MR, Pardini JE, Collins MW. The relation between post concussion symptoms and neurocognitive performance in concussed athletes. NeuroRehabilitation. 2007;22:207–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Gardner A, Shores EA, Batchelor J, Honan CA. Diagnostic efficiency of ImPACT and CogSport in concussed rugby union players who have not undergone baseline neurocognitive testing. Appl Neuropsychol. 2012;19:90–7.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Iverson GL, Lovell MR, Collins MW. Interpreting change on ImPACT following sport concussion. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17:460–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Ponsford J, Cameron P, Fitzgerald M, Grant M, Mikocka-Walus A. Long-term outcomes after uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury: a comparison with trauma controls. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:937–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Rieger BP, Lewandowski LJ, Callahan JM, Spenceley L, Truckenmiller A, Gathje R, et al. A prospective study of symptoms and neurocognitive outcomes in youth with concussion vs orthopaedic injuries. Brain Inj. 2013;27:169–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Yordanova J. Sensorimotor slowing with ageing is mediated by a functional dysregulation of motor-generation processes: evidence from high-resolution event-related potentials. Brain. 2004;127:351–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Woods DL, Wyma JM, Yund EW, Herron TJ, Reed B. Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Pearce AJ, Rist B, Fraser CL, Cohen A, Maller JJ. Neurophysiological and cognitive impairment following repeated sports concussion injuries in retired professional rugby league players. Brain Inj. 2018;32:498–505.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Broglio SP, Cantu RC, Gioia GA, Guskiewicz KM, Kutcher J, Palm M, et al. National Athletic Trainers’ Association position statement: management of sport concussion. J Athl Train. 2014;49:245.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Babikian T, Satz P, Zaucha K, Light R, Lewis RS, Asarnow RF. The UCLA longitudinal study of neurocognitive outcomes following mild pediatric traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011;17:886–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Rabinowitz AR, Li X, McCauley SR, Wilde EA, Barnes A, Hanten G, et al. Prevalence and predictors of poor recovery from mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:1488–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Broglio SP, Katz BP, Zhao S, McCrea M, McAllister T, CARE Consortium Investigators. Test–retest reliability and interpretation of common concussion assessment tools: findings from the NCAA-DoD CARE consortium. Sports Med Auckl NZ. 2017;48:1255–68.

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Eckner JT, Richardson JK, Kim H, Joshi MS, Oh YK, Ashton-Miller JA. Reliability and criterion validity of a novel clinical test of simple and complex reaction time in athletes. Percept Mot Skills. 2015;120:841–59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Littleton AC, Register-Mihalik JK, Guskiewicz KM. Test-retest reliability of a computerized concussion test: CNS vital signs. Sports Health Multidiscip Approach. 2015;7:443–7.

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1119–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Cole WR, Arrieux JP, Ivins BJ, Schwab KA, Qashu FM. A comparison of four computerized neurocognitive assessment tools to a traditional neuropsychological test battery in service members with and without mild traumatic brain injury. Arch Clin Neuropsychol Off J Natl Acad Neuropsychol. 2018;33:102–19.

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Radoi A, Poca MA, Canas V, Cevallos JM, Membrado L, Saavedra MC, et al. Neuropsychological alterations and neuroradiological findings in patients with post-traumatic concussion: results of a pilot study. Neurol Barc Spain. 2018;33:427–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Tsushima WT, Shirakawa N, Geling O. Neurocognitive functioning and symptom reporting of high school athletes following a single concussion. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2013;2:13–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Asken BM, Clugston JR, Snyder AR, Bauer RM. Baseline neurocognitive performance and clearance for athletes to return to contact. J Athl Train. 2017;52:51–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Broglio SP, Macciocchi SN, Ferrara MS. Sensitivity of the concussion assessment battery. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:1050–7 (discussion 1057–1058).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Covassin T, Crutcher B, Belanger S. Preinjury history of migraine headache: effects on neurocognitive performance and symptoms in athletes with concussion. Athl Train Sports Health Care J Pract Clin. 2014;6:220–7.

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Covassin T, Elbin RJ, Bleecker A, Lipchik A, Kontos AP. Are there differences in neurocognitive function and symptoms between male and female soccer players after concussions? Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2890–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Covassin T, Crutcher B, Wallace J. Does a 20 minute cognitive task increase concussion symptoms in concussed athletes? Brain Inj. 2013;27:1589–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Covassin T, Elbin RJ, Crutcher B, Burkhart S, Kontos A. The relationship between coping, neurocognitive performance, and concussion symptoms in high school and collegiate athletes. Sport Psychol. 2013;27:372–9.

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Covassin T, Stearne D, Elbin R. Concussion history and postconcussion neurocognitive performance and symptoms in collegiate athletes. J Athl Train. 2008;43:119–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Covassin T, Schatz P, Swanik CB. Sex differences in neuropsychological function and post-concussion symptoms of concussed collegiate athletes. Neurosurgery. 2007;61:345–50 (discussion 350–351).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Kontos AP, Covassin T, Elbin RJ, Parker T. Depression and neurocognitive performance after concussion among male and female high school and collegiate athletes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1751–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Kontos AP, Elbin RJ 3rd, Covassin T, Larson E. Exploring differences in computerized neurocognitive concussion testing between African American and White athletes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol Off J Natl Acad Neuropsychol. 2010;25:734–44.

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Lee YM, Wu A, Zuckerman SL, Stanko KM, LaChaud GY, Solomon GS, et al. Obesity and neurocognitive recovery after sports-related concussion in athletes: a matched cohort study. Phys Sportsmed. 2016;44:217–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Lovell MR, Solomon GS. Neurocognitive test performance and symptom reporting in cheerleaders with concussions. J Pediatr. 2013;163(1192–1195):e1.

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    McClincy MP, Lovell MR, Pardini J, Collins MW, Spore MK. Recovery from sports concussion in high school and collegiate athletes. Brain Inj. 2006;20:33–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Merritt VC, Arnett PA. Premorbid predictors of postconcussion symptoms in collegiate athletes. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2014;36:1098–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Mihalik JP, McCaffrey MA, Rivera EM, Pardini JE, Guskiewicz KM, Collins MW, et al. Effectiveness of mouthguards in reducing neurocognitive deficits following sports-related cerebral concussion. Dent Traumatol Off Publ Int Assoc Dent Traumatol. 2007;23:14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Schatz P, Robertshaw S. Comparing post-concussive neurocognitive test data to normative data presents risks for under-classifying “above average” athletes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;29:625–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Sosnoff JJ, Broglio SP, Ferrara MS. Cognitive and motor function are associated following mild traumatic brain injury. Exp Brain Res. 2008;187:563–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Sufrinko A, Pearce K, Elbin RJ, Covassin T, Johnson E, Collins M, et al. The effect of preinjury sleep difficulties on neurocognitive impairment and symptoms after sport-related concussion. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:830–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Van Kampen DA, Lovell MR, Pardini JE, Collins MW, Fu FH. The “value added” of neurocognitive testing after sports-related concussion. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1630–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Zhu DC, Covassin T, Nogle S, Doyle S, Russell D, Pearson RL, et al. A potential biomarker in sports-related concussion: brain functional connectivity alteration of the default-mode network measured with longitudinal resting-state fMRI over thirty days. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:327–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Zuckerman SL, Solomon GS, Forbes JA, Haase RF, Sills AK, Lovell MR. Response to acute concussive injury in soccer players: is gender a modifying factor? J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2012;10:504–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Landon B. Lempke.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Landon Lempke, David Howell, James Eckner, and Robert Lynall declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lempke, L.B., Howell, D.R., Eckner, J.T. et al. Examination of Reaction Time Deficits Following Concussion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med 50, 1341–1359 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01281-0

Download citation