Respiratory Monitoring with Textile Inductive Electrodes in Driving Applications: Effect of Electrode’s Positioning and Form Factor on Signal Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides insights into where and how to integrate textile inductive electrodes into a car to record optimal-quality respiratory signals. Electrodes of various shapes and sizes were integrated into the seat belt and the seat back of a driving simulator car seat. The electrodes covered various parts of the body: upper back, middle back, lower back, chest, and waist. Three subjects completed driving circuits with their breathing signals being recorded. In general, signal quality while driving versus sitting still was similar, compared to a previous study of ours with no body movements. In terms of positioning, electrodes on seat belt provided better signal quality compared to seat back. Signal quality was directly proportional to electrode's height on the back, with upper back outperforming both middle and lower back. Electrodes on the waist provided either similar or superior signal quality compared to electrodes on the chest. In terms of form factor, rectangular shape outperformed circular shape on seat back. Signal quality is proportional to the size of circular electrodes on seat back, and inversely proportional to size of rectangular electrode on seat belt.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".