MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389934664 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3342692

Input Resistance Boosting for Capacitive Biosignal Acquisition Electrodes

2023· article· en· W4389934664 on OpenAlexafffund
Vinicius Sirtoli, S.N. Granata, Ghyslain Gagnon, Glenn Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCapacitanceCapacitive sensingElectrodeMaterials scienceCapacitorBiosignalElectrical engineeringOptoelectronicsElectronic engineeringElectrical impedanceCapacitance probeAcousticsFilter (signal processing)EngineeringVoltagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capacitive electrodes are a promising alternative to conventional wet Ag/AgCl electrodes in the acquisition of biological signals. They consist of a metallic sensing layer covered by an insulating material that contacts the human body. They have the advantage of measuring biopotentials in humans through clothing, hair, and small air gaps. The electrode capacitance creates a high-pass filter with the analog front-end’s (AFE) input resistance. Hence, the bandwidth of the system, especially the low cut-off frequency, depends on the dielectric layers and the characteristics of the body-electrode contact. Moreover, capacitive electrodes suffer from motion artifacts (MAs) that also modify the electrode capacitance. This article proposes an electrode topology with boosted input resistance and compensation for the electrode capacitance changes. To achieve such characteristics, the proposed circuit comprises a negative impedance converter (NIC) that increases the input resistance, which allows the addition of a capacitor in series with the electrode capacitance to reduce the effects of capacitance changes. The proposed electrode’s cut-off frequency was investigated in a controlled test bench. For the worst case scenario of electrode capacitance (1 pF), the proposed topology achieved a cut-off frequency of 1.5 Hz while the reference circuit had a cut-off frequency of 72 Hz. The proposed topology also outperformed the reference electrode in common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) and through clothing ECG acquisition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207