EVALUATING THE DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF INTERFACIAL PRESSURE SENSORS AT A SIMULATED BODY-DEVICE INTERFACE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
 Layman's Abstract
 Pressure sensors can be used in prosthetics to provide clinicians with data about how well a device fits and functions. However, pressure sensors are unproven when it comes to use during activities such as walking or running. This study tested two common pressure sensors in a setup that applied forces similar to walking. These findings indicate that sensor calibration affects sensor accuracy. Accuracy can be improved by applying a small puck to the sensor to spread the load more evenly. With the puck, the performance of the sensors was found to be acceptable for potential use in clinical applications. These findings also show that dynamic testing of pressure sensors may not be needed prior to clinical usage. Instead, performance can be based on static testing which is easier to do.
 Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/36059/27891
 How To Cite: Hamilton M, Sivasambu H, Behdinan K, Andrysek J. Evaluating the dynamic performance of interfacial pressure sensors at a simulated body-device interface. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.36059
 Corresponding Author: Jan Andrysek, PhD,Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, Canada.Email: jandrysek@hollandbloorview.caORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4976-1228
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».