Cargando…
Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface
BACKGROUND: Pressure sensing at the body-device interface can help assess the quality of fit and function of assistive devices during physical activities and movement such as walking and running. However, the dynamic performance of various pressure sensor configurations is not well established. OBJE...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Canadian Online Publication Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10443500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37614935 http://dx.doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.36059 |
_version_ | 1785093852393111552 |
---|---|
author | Hamilton, M Sivasambu, H Behdinan, K Andrysek, J |
author_facet | Hamilton, M Sivasambu, H Behdinan, K Andrysek, J |
author_sort | Hamilton, M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Pressure sensing at the body-device interface can help assess the quality of fit and function of assistive devices during physical activities and movement such as walking and running. However, the dynamic performance of various pressure sensor configurations is not well established. OBJECTIVE(S): Two common commercially available thin-film pressure sensors were tested to determine the effects of clinically relevant setup configurations focusing on loading areas, interfacing elements (i.e. ‘puck’) and calibration methods. METHODOLOGY: Testing was performed using a customized universal testing machine to simulate dynamic, mobility relevant loads at the body-device interface. Sensor performance was evaluated by analyzing accuracy and hysteresis. FINDINGS: The results suggest that sensor calibration method has a significant effect on sensor performance although the difference is mitigated by using an elastomeric loading puck. Both sensors exhibited similar performance during dynamic testing that agree with accuracy and hysteresis values reported by manufacturers and in previous studies assessing mainly static and quasi-static conditions. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that sensor performance under mobility relevant conditions may be adequately represented via static and quasi-testing testing. This is important since static testing is much easier to apply and reduces the burden on users to verify dynamic performance of sensors prior to clinical application. The authors also recommend using a load puck for dynamic testing conditions to achieve optimal performance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10443500 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Canadian Online Publication Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104435002023-08-23 Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface Hamilton, M Sivasambu, H Behdinan, K Andrysek, J Can Prosthet Orthot J Research Articles BACKGROUND: Pressure sensing at the body-device interface can help assess the quality of fit and function of assistive devices during physical activities and movement such as walking and running. However, the dynamic performance of various pressure sensor configurations is not well established. OBJECTIVE(S): Two common commercially available thin-film pressure sensors were tested to determine the effects of clinically relevant setup configurations focusing on loading areas, interfacing elements (i.e. ‘puck’) and calibration methods. METHODOLOGY: Testing was performed using a customized universal testing machine to simulate dynamic, mobility relevant loads at the body-device interface. Sensor performance was evaluated by analyzing accuracy and hysteresis. FINDINGS: The results suggest that sensor calibration method has a significant effect on sensor performance although the difference is mitigated by using an elastomeric loading puck. Both sensors exhibited similar performance during dynamic testing that agree with accuracy and hysteresis values reported by manufacturers and in previous studies assessing mainly static and quasi-static conditions. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that sensor performance under mobility relevant conditions may be adequately represented via static and quasi-testing testing. This is important since static testing is much easier to apply and reduces the burden on users to verify dynamic performance of sensors prior to clinical application. The authors also recommend using a load puck for dynamic testing conditions to achieve optimal performance. Canadian Online Publication Group 2021-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10443500/ /pubmed/37614935 http://dx.doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.36059 Text en Copyright (c) 2021 Hamilton M, Sivasambu H, Behdinan K, Andrysek J https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Hamilton, M Sivasambu, H Behdinan, K Andrysek, J Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface |
title | Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface |
title_full | Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface |
title_fullStr | Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface |
title_short | Evaluating the Dynamic Performance of Interfacial Pressure Sensors at a Simulated Body-Device Interface |
title_sort | evaluating the dynamic performance of interfacial pressure sensors at a simulated body-device interface |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10443500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37614935 http://dx.doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.36059 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hamiltonm evaluatingthedynamicperformanceofinterfacialpressuresensorsatasimulatedbodydeviceinterface AT sivasambuh evaluatingthedynamicperformanceofinterfacialpressuresensorsatasimulatedbodydeviceinterface AT behdinank evaluatingthedynamicperformanceofinterfacialpressuresensorsatasimulatedbodydeviceinterface AT andrysekj evaluatingthedynamicperformanceofinterfacialpressuresensorsatasimulatedbodydeviceinterface |