The Influence of Protective Headgear on the Peripheral Vision Reaction Time of Recreational-Level Skiers

Abstract

Alpine skiing is characterized by specific and dynamic conditions and demands constant processing of visual information and fast decision-making. A fast response time is necessary for protective movements which reduce the number and severity of additional head impacts. The apparent detriments to visual performance caused by protective headgear are concerning and should be considered moving forward in recreational alpine skiing. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of wearing the three most common combinations of protective headgear in skiing on the timing of visual stimuli perception and adequate response when simulating on-the-slope situations. The sample consisted of 45 recreational-level skiers (27 M, 18 F; age 30.6 ± 8.19 years) who had finished basic alpine skiing school, had been skiing 6–10 years continuously, and were students of Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb. They did not report any serious medical conditions regarding vision. The overall testing was conducted in the winter season during January and February of 2022. Reaction time on perceived visual stimuli was observed in a way that a skier was approaching behind a participant’s back from both the left and right side. A 2 × 3 (helmet*condition) mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to determine differences between helmet users and non-users in each tested condition. When observing the results, it was confirmed that the response time of the participants was the slowest when wearing a ski helmet and goggles combined. Furthermore, one of the most important findings was the determined differences in reaction time between helmet users and non-users, i.e., prior helmet users tended to react faster to the upcoming visual stimuli when wearing combined ski helmet and goggles. In the design and construction of the goggles, it is also necessary to pay attention to reducing the thickness of the frame in order to reduce the distance between the eye and the lens, which consequently reduces interference in the peripheral parts of the field of vision. In future studies, the same testing protocol with all the possible combinations of wearing a ski cap, a helmet, sunglasses, and goggles is necessary to gain a clearer insight into the effect of each item of headgear separately and in various combinations.

1. Introduction

The health benefits of alpine skiing are various, covering the areas of psychosocial, cardiovascular, locomotor, and motor control [1]. However, at the same time, alpine skiing is associated with a certain risk of accidents and consequently injuries. More than 80% of all injuries are non-contact or self-inflicted and can be explained as conditions-driven, i.e., they are a result of various environmental perturbations, falls, or reduced visual perception due to poor weather conditions [2,3].

To reduce the risk of severe injuries, various protective gear is used. Head injuries are a type of injury that represents serious traumas and, in a small percentage of cases, can even be fatal for recreational skiers. Based on the available data, up to 20% of all injuries which occur on ski slopes are head injuries [4]. Wearing protective headgear, such as a ski helmet and goggles, can significantly increase security and diminish the risk of serious head traumas [4,5,6]. The protective role of the ski helmet is inevitable, but its protection may be impaired by changes in skiers’ behavior, i.e., more risk-taking because of a false sense of increased security. The perceived level of risk might be diminished when wearing a ski helmet and could lead to higher risk-taking on the ski slopes by skiing faster, more aggressively, or on more demanding and challenging slopes even though skiing technique is inadequate. There is a continuous debate over whether ski helmets provide a false sense of security which potentially leads to an increased injury risk [7,8]. This issue is especially emphasized by the International Ski Federation, advising recreational skiers to adjust their speeds based on their level of ski knowledge and overall visibility on the ski slopes [9].

Moreover, a common reason behind helmet non-use is a limited visual field, which certainly presents a problem because peripheral vision is an essential factor for safety in alpine skiing [10,11]. Advanced visual reaction time, visual memory, and visual discrimination are directly translated to improved sport performance and reduced locomotor injury risk [12]. Alpine skiing is characterized by specific and dynamic conditions and demands constant processing of visual information and fast decision-making. A fast reaction time is necessary for protective responses which can reduce the frequency and seriousness of head impacts. The visual deficiencies created by foggy goggles, inappropriate lens color, and inadequate size or model of ski helmet may cause injury in poor visibility conditions [13]. Decreased visual abilities causing a delay in perception of visual stimulus reduces the ability to take evasive action. Furthermore, vision provides signals that allow the body to respond timely and adequately. If the visual system is not receiving messages optimally, the overall performance may deteriorate [14].

The obvious impairment of visual performance caused by protective headgear is concerning and should be taken into account in order to achieve advances in recreational alpine skiing. If skiers are unable to properly anticipate collisions, it could affect their performance and their safety. In other words, the additional time a skier needs to respond to a visual stimulus when wearing a helmet translates to a slower response to an impending danger, which can reduce a skier’s ability to properly position themselves before the impact (or fall) or completely avoid it [15,16].

Surprisingly, a very limited number of studies deal with the problem of visual perception in the population of recreational skiers, especially when it comes to the importance of fast and adequate response to various visual stimuli. This is especially highlighted when it comes to the direct influence of protective headgear on the overall visual abilities with an emphasis on reaction time, which is certainly not adequately addressed in the current literature.

One of the available research projects concerning the importance of visual abilities in alpine skiing presents arguments which suggest that ski helmet use does not impair vision. The obtained results indicated that ski goggles increased mean reaction time to peripheral stimuli [17]. Even though these results suggest that ski goggles increase reaction time to peripheral stimuli, the use of ski goggles is still recommended during skiing for protection against ultraviolet light and air stream. Reduced visual acuity could affect reaction times in various dangerous situations; for example, when avoiding ice patches on ski slopes [13]. However, the study by Ruedl et al. (2011) was conducted in laboratory and these results cannot simply be transferred to situational conditions [17].

There is also research focused on the influence of protective headgear on the peripheral vision and ability to respond to visual stimuli in other sports. For example, Kramer et al. [18] conducted a study where the focus was on the effect of protective helmets from different sports on visual abilities and sensory performance. The results suggested an impaired ability to react to visual stimuli located in the corners of the screen, i.e., the response was slower to visual targets in the periphery when wearing a helmet. Additionally, Kauffman et al. [19] concluded that wearing sports goggles decreased peripheral visual target detection during a peripheral vision test. Miller et al. [20] observed the influence of headgear on peripheral vision reaction time and visual target detection in American football. Their findings showed that wearing only a helmet and a helmet with an eye shield decreased performance, i.e., the total hit score was lower during peripheral reaction time tests.

In our recent study [21], conducted under laboratory conditions, we reported a significant negative influence on visual performance from a combination of wearing a ski helmet and ski goggles in terms of their influence on the perception of peripheral visual stimuli. However, when comparing the results of helmet users and non-users, there were no differences in the amount of visual impairment, i.e., the habit of wearing a helmet did not influence the ability to perceive visual stimuli. As already discussed in that study, the main reason for the scarce data in this research area might be the complexity of testing procedures necessary to access visual abilities. After conducting the testing procedures in the laboratory, to gain valid data and objectively identify the impact of the same protective headgear combinations in alpine skiing on the perception of visual stimuli when skiing, it is necessary to conduct suitable measurement in situational conditions directly on the ski slope.

Nevertheless, it can be stated that there is a gap in the available data regarding the number of injuries that occur because of the inability to react to peripheral visual stimuli during skiing when using various forms of protective headgear. A comprehensive investigation of protective headgear use in skiing and its influence on skiers’ visuomotor abilities is necessary to optimize their performance and enhance their safety.

For such reasons, the aim of this study was to examine the effects of wearing the three most common combinations of protective headgear in skiing (ski cap, ski cap and sunglasses, and ski helmet and ski goggles) on the timing of visual stimuli perception and adequate response when simulating on-the-slope situations. Additionally, the aim was to determine potential differences in reaction time for helmet users and non-users. We hypothesized that in the field-testing procedure, the reaction time on the peripheral visual stimuli would be the slowest when wearing a ski helmet and ski goggles combined for both prior helmet users and non-users. Furthermore, we expected differences in results for helmet users and non-users, in such a way that the reaction time would be slower for helmet non-users when combining a ski helmet and ski goggles.

2. Materials and Methods

Participants: The sample consisted of 45 recreational-level skiers (27 M, 18 F; age 30.6 ± 8.19 years) who had finished basic alpine skiing school and had been skiing for 6–10 years continuously (7 to 10 days each winter season). The sample size consisted of students involved in the teaching of the regular skiing course and the optional skiing course which are carried out as part of faculty classes in the Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb. Participants did not disclose any prior locomotor injuries that could affect their skiing technique. Additionally, they did not disclose any prior serious medical conditions regarding their vision. Their exact vision status was not evaluated since they served as their own controls during the testing protocol. Additionally, ski novices were not included in this study. Since all the participants were students of the Faculty of Kinesiology, they were considered to have a higher level of developed motor knowledge and abilities when compared to some other recreational-level skiers. They were not included in any other physical activity and training programs except for regular obligatory classes of alpine skiing from 9 am to 1 pm. The data regarding their nutrition and hydration were not tracked because we did not find it to be specifically relevant for the result outcome. Participants were asked if they wore a ski helmet previously to determine their habits concerning using a ski helmet (helmet users n = 22; helmet non-users n = 23). Additionally, all the helmet users reported using a helmet continuously since their first time skiing.

Variables and equipment: Reaction time on perceived visual stimuli was observed in a way that a skier was approaching behind a participant’s back from both the left and right side (Left side_rt, Right side_rt). For both observed variables, the result was expressed in seconds with an accuracy of 1/100 s. Each of the following predefined conditions were tested: 1—wearing only a ski cap (control condition used as a baseline), 2—wearing a ski cap and sunglasses, 3—wearing ski goggles and a ski helmet (Figure 1).

For the testing procedure on the ski slope, Microgate Witty photocells (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) were used to assess the reaction time of the upcoming visual stimuli. The Witty system is used for precise time measurement and, given that the system tolerates lower temperatures well, it can be used for testing purposes in situational conditions on the ski slope. For the purposes of this research, in the test settings, it was defined that the time was automatically started when the skier passed through the space bounded by photocells, and the time was stopped when the participant pressed the stop button on the Witty console. The reliability and validity of this system have been proven in previous research [22,23,24,25]. The field-testing protocol was also recorded with 2 Panasonic GH5 cameras for recording high-resolution video materials that enable simple subsequent video analysis of the recordings to determine certain deviations in the set measurement protocol.

Protocol of investigation: All participants followed the same testing protocol on the ski slope. Firstly, the appropriate size of ski helmet, ski goggles, and sunglasses were individually chosen to suite each participant. Standard protective headgear was used, i.e., a conventional ski helmet (Briko, approved: CE EN1077), a standard ski cap (50% virgin wool, 50% acrylic), standard ski goggles (Model: Briko Homer P1) and standard sunglasses (Model: Bliz Hybrid). The ski helmet was available in 4 different sizes (small, medium, large, and extra-large) to ensure an optimal fit of the helmet for each tested participant.

The overall field testing was conducted in the Sappada ski center in the Dolomiti region (Italy), on the medium-steepness ski slope polygon which had minimal lateral tilts of the slope. The overall testing was conducted in the winter season during January and February of 2022. Additionally, the testing was carried out during clear sunny days when there was no snowfall and wind that could affect the results. The measurement was carried out on days when it was not too cold and the temperature did not exceed −5 degrees Celsius, in the morning hours to ensure identical lighting conditions. A 30 m wide corridor was set up on the ski slope which was closed for other skiers to exclude the possibility of additional disturbing factors in the form of visual and auditory stimuli. The participant stood in the middle of the corridor with their back turned to the top of the ski slope and their head was in a fixed position resting on a stand of adjustable height to ensure identical conditions for all participants. To isolate the disturbing sound stimuli and to exclusively test the reaction time to the upcoming peripheral visual stimulus, the participant wore earplugs. Furthermore, there were Witty photocells at the bottom of the corridor on the left and right side. The participant held the Witty console in their hands, and by pressing the stop button, stopped the timer that was started in the moment when the skier passed through the space bounded by photocells on the left or right side. The stated time required to perceive the visual stimulus from the moment the skier passed by until the time the participant stopped it is the noted reaction time.

Before the actual testing, all participants underwent a trial (two descents of the skier from each side) to familiarize themselves with the testing protocol. When the subject was positioned in a defined position, at the signal of the researcher (who was outside the video circle of the subject), in the given corridor on both sides behind the participant’s back, a skier who represented a potential danger for a collision on the ski slope descended. The descent of skiers was carried out alternately and in random order 10 times (5 on the left and 5 on the right) for each defined combination of wearing protective headgear. To limit the skier’s movement speed, instructions were given to make a parallel turn from edge to edge of the corridor. At the signal of the researcher, immediately before entering the space bounded by photocells, the left or right side was chosen for passing.

The 1st study [21] we published on visual field impairments while wearing various combinations of protective headgear was carried out in a more controlled environment (in laboratory conditions). In this study, we focused on real situational conditions which could give us an insight into what really happens on the ski slope when wearing the same combinations of protective headgear that were tested in the laboratory setting.

Statistical Analysis: With the use of the G*power program 3.1.9.7 (University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany), the sample size was calculated (n = 32) that was needed for the testing procedure with a statistical significance of p < 0.05; statistical power 0.95; effect size 0.30; two groups (helmet users vs. non-users); and three measurements (tested conditions). Statistical analysis was performed with the use of Statistica 14.0.1.25 (TIBCO software, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). Basic descriptive parameters (mean—x; standard deviation—SD) were used to describe variables for each group and tested condition. To determine differences between helmet users and non-users in each tested condition, 2 × 3 (helmet*condition) mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used. A post hoc test was performed for further analysis of variables with determined significant interactions. The level of statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

When conducting the 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA, general statistically significant interactions were determined (F = 6.24; p < 0.01). In

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for both groups in three tested conditions of wearing protective headgear and results of 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA for each variable.

Variable	Helmet Users			Helmet Non-Users			Interaction Helmet*Condition
	1	2	3	1	2	3
	x ± SD	x ± SD	x ± SD	x ± SD	x ± SD	x ± SD	F	p
Left side_rt	0.30 ± 0.08	0.29 ± 0.08	0.50 ± 0.10	0.28 ± 0.08	0.29 ± 0.08	0.54 ± 0.10	7.48	<0.01 *
Right side_rt	0.29 ± 0.07	0.32 ± 0.06	0.51 ± 0.09	0.28 ± 0.07	0.30 ± 0.06	0.55 ± 0.09	9.85	<0.01 *

Legend: * p < 0.05; Left side_rt—Reaction time when the skier is approaching from the left side; Right side_rt—Reaction time when the skier is approaching from the right side. Condition 1—Ski cap; Condition 2—Ski cap and sunglasses; Condition 3—Ski helmet and ski goggles.

, more detailed results of the conducted statistical analysis are presented.

Table 1 shows descriptive statistical parameters for both tested groups in all the tested conditions of wearing protective headgear. Additionally, the table shows the results of the mixed-model ANOVA for prior helmet users and non-users (between factor) in all the tested conditions (within factor). Statistically significant interactions were determined for the reaction time when the skier was approaching both from the left (p < 0.01, F = 7.48) and right (p < 0.01, F = 9.85) side.

Tukey’s post hoc test (

Table 2. Tukey post hoc results for reaction time when the skier was approaching from the left side.

Left Side_Rt
Interaction	Helmet	Condition	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	0	1		0.74	<0.01 *	0.59	0.80	<0.01 *
2	0	2	0.74		<0.01 *	1.00	1.00	<0.01 *
3	0	3	<0.01 *	<0.01 *		<0.01 *	<0.01 *	<0.01 *
4	1	1	0.59	1.00	0.00 *		1.00	<0.01 *
5	1	2	0.80	1.00	<0.01 *	1.00		<0.01 *
6	1	3	<0.01 *	<0.01 *	0.01 *	<0.01 *	<0.01 *

Legend: * p < 0.05; Helmet 0—Helmet non-users; Helmet 1—Helmet users; Condition 1—Ski cap; Condition 2—Ski cap and sunglasses; Condition 3—Ski helmet and ski goggles.

and

Table 3. Tukey post hoc results for reaction time when the skier was approaching from the right side.

Right Side_Rt
Interaction	Helmet	Condition	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	0	1		0.45	<0.01 *	1.00	0.01 *	<0.01 *
2	0	2	0.45		<0.01 *	0.71	0.46	<0.01 *
3	0	3	<0.01 *	<0.01 *		<0.01 *	<0.01 *	<0.01 *
4	1	1	1.00	0.71	<0.01 *		<0.01 *	<0.01 *
5	1	2	<0.01 *	0.46	<0.01 *	<0.01 *		<0.01 *
6	1	3	0.00 *	<0.01 *	<0.01 *	<0.01 *	<0.01 *

Legend: * p < 0.05; Helmet 0—Helmet non-users; Helmet 1—Helmet users; Condition 1—Ski cap; Condition 2—Ski cap and sunglasses; Condition 3—Ski helmet and ski goggles.

) was used to further analyze significant interactions for each variable.

Table 2 shows Tukey’s post hoc results for reaction time to visual stimuli when appearing on the left side. When observing the results for helmet non-users, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing conditions 1 and 3 (p < 0.01). There was also a difference when comparing conditions 2 and 3 (p < 0.01). It can also be concluded that helmet non-users in condition 3 differed from all other conditions for helmet non-users and users (p ≤ 0.01). When observing solely helmet users, there was a statistically significant difference between conditions 4 and 6 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, a significant difference was found when comparing the results for helmet users between conditions 5 and 6 (p < 0.01).

When comparing the results of helmet users and helmet non-users in the same tested conditions, there was no statistically significant difference in interactions when comparing interactions 1 and 4 (p = 0.59) and 2 and 5 (p = 1.00). However, a statistically significant difference was found between interactions 3 and 6 (p < 0.01), which means there was a difference in the time required to react to a visual stimulus when it appears on the left side of the participant between interaction helmet non-users*ski helmet + goggles and interaction helmet users*ski helmet + goggles. Helmet users had a faster response on the visual stimuli when wearing a ski helmet and goggles compared to helmet non-users (0.50 s vs. 0.54 s).

Table 2 shows Tukey post hoc results for reaction time to visual stimuli when appearing on the right side. When observing the results for helmet non-users, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing conditions 1 and 3 (p < 0.01). There was also a difference when comparing conditions 2 and 3 (p < 0.01). It can also be concluded that helmet non-users in condition 3 differ from all other conditions for helmet non-users and users (p < 0.01). When observing solely helmet users, there was a statistically significant difference between conditions 4 and 5 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, a significant difference was also found when comparing the results for helmet users between conditions 5 and 6 (p < 0.01) and 4 and 6 (p < 0.01).

When comparing the results of helmet users and helmet non-users in the same tested conditions, it is possible to conclude that there was no statistically significant difference in interactions when comparing interactions 1 and 4 (p = 1.00) and 2 and 5 (p = 0.46). However, a statistically significant difference was found between interactions 3 and 6 (p < 0.01), which means that there was a difference in the time required to react to a visual stimulus when it appeared on the right side of the participant between interaction helmet non-users*ski helmet + goggles and interaction helmet users*ski helmet + goggles. Helmet users had a faster response to the visual stimuli when wearing a ski helmet and goggles compared to helmet non-users (0.51 s vs. 0.55 s).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of wearing the three most common combinations of protective headgear in skiing (ski cap, ski cap and sunglasses, and ski helmet and ski goggles) on the timing of visual stimuli perception and adequate response when simulating on-the-slope situations. Additionally, the aim was to determine potential differences in reaction time for helmet users and non-users. The reaction speed to visual stimuli differed between different conditions of wearing protective headgear for both prior helmet users and non-users, regardless of the side from which the visual stimuli appeared. Likewise, in the interaction of two factors (the habit of wearing a helmet and different condition of headgear equipment), statistically significant differences were found in both groups for both sides of the visual stimuli source. When observing the results, it can be confirmed that the response time of the participants was the slowest when wearing a ski helmet and goggles combined, compared to the other tested conditions (ski cap, ski cap and sunglasses). The same can be stated for both prior helmet users and non-users. Furthermore, one of the most important findings related to determined differences in reaction time between helmet users and non-users, i.e., prior helmet users tended to react faster to the upcoming visual stimuli when wearing both a ski helmet and goggles. This is in the accordance with the stated hypothesis, and we confirmed that peripheral vision reaction time was better when the habit of wearing a ski helmet was developed.

Similar findings regarding the influence of a habit of wearing a helmet on a sensory performance were determined in a study conducted by Ruzic et al. [26]. In that study, localization of specific ski sounds was measured to determine differences between various tested conditions of wearing protective headgear but also to determine potential differences between helmet users and non-users. The results showed a significant difference in specific ski sounds localization when wearing a helmet vs. not wearing a helmet (p < 0.001). However, the habit of wearing a ski helmet did not affect performance (p = 0.89). On the other hand, when discussing the timing, i.e., the exact moment at which participants registered the sound stimuli, the results were also better when the participants were not wearing a helmet (p < 0.001). Furthermore, in that case, the results did depend on the habit of wearing a helmet (p < 0.05). This means that the decreased ability of sound identification that occurs because of helmets might be avoided with the regular usage of a ski helmet. The results obtained in our study also confirm the direct influence of a helmet-wearing habit on the timing of perceiving stimuli, but in this case the significant difference was found when testing the reaction time on the upcoming visual peripheral stimuli (p < 0.01). Helmet users tended to react faster (on average 0.04 s), which can directly relate to their better positioning in dangerous situations, helping them to avoid collisions with other skiers or falls on the ski slopes.

Furthermore, Ruedl et al. [17] conducted a laboratory testing procedure to measure the reaction time necessary to respond to a stimulus presented in the peripheral visual field. In their study, the lowest mean reaction time was measured for cap-only use (477.3 ± 16.6), the same as in our study (mean reaction time for both groups were 0.29 s). The determined reaction time did not differ when wearing a helmet only (478.5 ± 19.1, p = 0.911). On the other hand, reaction time was significantly longer when wearing both cap and goggles (514.1 ± 20.8, p = 0.005) and both helmet and goggles (497.6 ± 17.3, p = 0.017) when compared to cap-only use. In our study, differences were also determined when comparing interactions between cap-only use and combined helmet and goggles use, when observing both groups, both when the skier (visual stimuli) was approaching from the left and from the right side (p < 0.01).

The results of the aforementioned study indicate that well-fitting ski helmet use did not increase mean reaction time to peripheral stimuli when compared to ski-cap-only use. In contrast, the usage of ski goggles increased mean reaction time to peripheral stimuli. Some of the reasons for decreased peripheral vision when using goggles might be their protective design and their thick frames that are positioned very close to the eyes. At the same time, they increase the distance between the frames and the eye, which may cause greater peripheral vision interference. Most of the time, the central vision is oriented towards the perception of relevant objects and of fine details in a still image, while peripheral vision is designed to notice changes in the visual field itself, especially in the peripheral parts that are outside of the primary focus. When there is an obstruction in front of the eyes, it is even more challenging to identify and recruit information received from the peripheral vision and react adequately and timely. The additional time it takes to respond to a target when wearing a helmet translates to a slower response to a forthcoming threat, which can directly reduce an athlete’s ability to avoid or brace for an impact, thereby increasing potential for injury [18].

When further discussing the role of the goggles in visual perception, Kauffman et al. [19] aimed to determine the effects of goggles on reaction time when detecting targets. Their negative effect was most evident in the peripheral rings. Their results showed that goggles impaired visual target detection, i.e., goggles may negatively affect the detection of peripheral visual stimuli. The authors came to a very similar conclusion to ours regarding the impairment caused by goggles.

When observing the influence of headgear on visual performance in other sports, Poltavski and Biberdorf [12] examined the role of visual perception in the performance of hockey players. Based on their results, it can be concluded that a faster reaction time could directly be related to a higher percentage of success in scored goals.

The effects of protective headgear on peripheral visual field, response time and visual target localization were also measured in American football. The mentioned components of vision were the subject matter of a study conducted by Miller et al. [20]. They tested three conditions of protective headgear usage: baseline (with no headgear), wearing only a helmet, and wearing a helmet combined with an eye shield. Participants underwent a peripheral vision reaction-time-testing protocol for each predefined condition. Visual stimuli detection was better during baseline than in the helmet-only condition (p < 0.001) and with a helmet with an eye shield (p < 0.001). Average, peak, minimum, and median peripheral reaction times were significantly better and faster during baseline than when wearing protective headgear (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between two conditions of wearing protective headgear (p > 0.05). For example, in our study, there were differences determined between the tested combinations of wearing protective headgear, i.e., ski cap and sunglasses, differed significantly between helmet and goggles combinations (p < 0.01, for both groups in both tested sides). Additionally, differences were found when comparing helmet users and non-users in combinations of helmet and goggles (interaction 3 vs. 6, p < 0.01), but not when wearing a ski cap and sunglasses (interaction 2 vs. 5, p > 0.05). The findings of the related study suggest that protective football headgear negatively influences reaction time to visual stimuli located in the periphery. These results enable practical applications in order to enhance player safety and reduce injury risk.

Likewise, Kramer et al. [18] performed a crossover visual test in which participants completed assessments of vision performance under the condition of wearing various sport helmets and under the condition of not wearing a helmet. The results indicated that eye–hand coordination and go/no-go performance were affected when wearing a helmet. When discussing eye–hand coordination, the deterioration of performance associated with wearing a helmet was triggered by delayed responses to peripheral targets. One of the reasons for this may be the framework structure of the facemask and helmet itself, which interferes with the ability to perceive and respond to visual targets located in the periphery. This is in accordance with the participants’ self-reported task assessment, where they reported having difficulty perceiving the targets located in the corners of the screen. The same was seen in our study, where the helmeted condition in combination with goggles created the greatest obstruction when reacting to peripheral visual stimuli, i.e., response was significantly slower when compared to the baseline (p < 0.01). When processing the information from the environment, the brain is dedicated more to vision than all the other senses combined, so if the visual system is obstructed it may cause inadequate visual process usage, which can significantly affect an athlete’s performance.

This means that the faster the visual stimulus reaches the motor cortex, the faster the response time to the stimulus will be, i.e., the faster the stimulus reaches the brain, the faster the signal is processed, and the faster the adequate responses are sent to the body for the required motor reaction [27].

It should be highlighted that cyclic sports performance depends less on the environment and stimuli from the environment compared to following predetermined patterns of movement (athletics, swimming). However, sports with acyclic movements and more complex types take place in relatively unpredictable, continuously changing conditions, and movements must be constantly adjusted (skiing) [28]. The optimal visual performance in sport generally refers to giving a corresponding answer in the shortest possible time on the basis of a minimum amount of information, with the least amount of effort, continuously or discontinuously, over a longer period. The advanced ability to recognize and react to peripheral stimuli, quick changes of view, and tracking of objects while they are in motion contribute to better performance, which is especially emphasized in winter sports where changes in the environment continuously take place. They are characterized by the specific and dynamic conditions in which they are performed, so they require fast, continuous, and efficient processing of visual information. Based on visual feedback, skiers must quickly judge and adjust their various actions and movements, and the speed, direction, and position of the body.

Regarding the consequences of reduced visual perception and poor visual performance, the most important result of the analysis carried out by Schläppi, Urfer, and Kredel [16] is manifested in the proposal that the relationship between psychological demands, motor performance, and visual perception should be understood bidirectionally. That is, not only is visual perception reduced by psychological pressure, but so is self-confidence in the case of poor perceptual conditions. Additionally, not only is visual perception enhanced by excellent skiing technique, but technical performance is also enhanced by unobstructed perception and processing of visual stimuli.

Limitations

As already mentioned in the first part of this research [21], the main limitation of this study is that a helmet and goggles were tested only in combination, which cannot provide a clear insight into how visual perception with the emphasis on reaction time would be impaired in the case of wearing a helmet and goggles in other combinations. In future studies, the same testing protocol with all the possible combinations of wearing a ski cap, a helmet, sunglasses, and goggles is necessary to gain a clearer insight into the effect of each piece of headgear separately and in various combinations. Furthermore, age group certainly plays a significant role in the gathered results. Different results could potentially be obtained if the participants were older, due to the greater possibility of visual impairments in that age group. In future studies, it would also be interesting to incorporate ski novices and compare their results with the more experienced skiers because of the possible differences of the gained results.

5. Conclusions

After combining the conclusions from our previous study focused on the testing of the visual field, and this study, which focused on the reaction time, it can be stated that a combination of wearing a ski helmet and ski goggles significantly negatively influences visual performance. The impairment is manifested in such a way that the visual field is narrowed, and the reaction time is slower for both helmet users and non-users.

When observing response time necessary to perceive visual stimuli in real situational conditions on the ski slope, there is a significant difference between helmet users and non-users. Helmet users react faster to the upcoming peripheral visual stimuli, enabling them to adapt their further actions, protect themselves, avoid collision with other skiers completely, or brace for impact before collision or fall. To reach valid conclusions about relations between visual perception and protective headgear, it is necessary to conduct the same integration of laboratory and on-the-field testing protocols presented in our studies but incorporating all the possible combinations of wearing protective headgear.

Additionally, the data could provide valuable information to the protective headgear industry, especially in helmet and goggles construction design, and for educational purposes to ensure that ski novices develop the habit of using protective headgear.

In future studies, the same testing protocol with all the possible combinations of wearing a ski cap, a helmet, sunglasses, and goggles is necessary to gain a clearer insight into the effect of each piece headgear separately and in various combinations. Our suggestion would be to increase the variety of testing procedures related to the determination of the size of the visual field, with an emphasis on the peripheral visual field, during the process of awarding safety certificates.