By Associate Professor James McLoughlin, Chief Academic Officer at Your Brain Health.
This week, I’ve been fielding a lot of questions about the recent Herald Sun coverage (also picked up in the Adelaide Now) on a new concussion detection tool, BrainEye. You can read the article here:
🔗 BrainEye app delivers 100% concussion detection rate
Naturally, I was curious to dive into the new research backing this product:
Clough, M., Bartholomew, J., White, O., & Fielding, J. (2025)
Investigating the utility of the BrainEye smartphone eye tracking application and platform in concussion management. Sports Medicine – Open, 11(1), 24.
The Study at a Glance
The research involved 384 AFL players from 10 of the 18 clubs, using BrainEye for baseline testing. However, only three clubs provided post-concussion data. That left:
- 11 players tested on the day of concussion
- 9 tested at 48 hours
- 5 tested at 7 days
BrainEye tested four eye movement and pupil functions:
- Smooth Pursuit (SMP)
- Near Point Convergence (NPC)
- Pupillary Light Reflex (PLR)
- Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)
Only two tests—SMP and PLR—produced usable data. This didn’t come as a surprise to us, based on our own early look at the device.
The results? The combined BrainEye score had a reported 100% sensitivity and 85% specificity for identifying clinical concussion in this small group. Individually, SMP and PLR showed moderate diagnostic value, with sensitivities around 70%.
While that all sounds impressive, especially to a headline editor, it’s worth taking a closer look at what this actually means for real-world application.
Optimism vs. Reality: The Big Picture
Let’s start with what’s promising:
- Objective data in eye movement and pupil response is increasingly recognised as a key part of the concussion puzzle.
- Having rapid, accessible tools could help in environments where expert clinicians aren’t available pitchside.
- BrainEye’s attempt to move this tech onto a mobile device is a logical step forward in usability.
But here’s the catch:
- The study only tracked 11 concussed players, all of whom were already clinically diagnosed using standard tools like SCAT6. So, the real-world added value of BrainEye in this context remains unclear.
- Two of the four test domains weren’t usable in this setup.
- It’s not yet known if the smartphone-only app (without the infrared hardware used in the study) can deliver the same data quality.
- Implementation was low—just 3 of 10 clubs actually used the tool post-concussion, citing logistical barriers.
The Grassroots Question
A key concern is how this technology is being positioned. The research is based on a small, elite-level AFL sample, but the marketing is targeting grassroots players and junior leagues. Is the tool validated in that context? Does it actually help detect concussion better than tools like CRT6 (used by non-medical professionals)?
If the goal is broader safety, we need to ask:
- Does it lead to more players being correctly removed from play and referred for medical evaluation?
- Can it inform recovery, not just detection?
- Does it support targeted vestibular, visual or cervical rehab pathways?
These are the real-world questions that matter—not just headline accuracy claims from a pilot study.
Where We Stand at Your Brain Health
At Your Brain Health, we’ve been using several high-resolution, oculomotor tests as part of a multimodal brain health screen for over three years. And that’s just one part of our toolkit.
We’re not just assessing injury—we’re tracking recovery and guiding referral pathways for:
- Vision and vestibular therapy
- Cervical dysfunction
- Cognitive and balance rehab
- Psychological wellbeing
- Improved performance
We’re also capturing longitudinal data across elite and community cohorts, helping athletes, clinicians and clubs make truly informed decisions.
We welcome new tech that brings value—but we also believe in specific validation and transparency in research fundings, and clear distinctions between marketing hype and clinical utility.
Innovation in concussion care is essential—and it’s exciting to see oculomotor testing get the attention it deserves. But tools like BrainEye needs more independent research (2 authors of this study were part of the company in this case), broader usability testing, and clearer real-world application pathways before they can claim a central role in sideline or recovery protocols.
We’re always open to integrating new tools into our platform. But until then, we’ll continue to focus on delivering the most comprehensive, evidence-informed brain health assessments available.