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. 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

[1]  Olga Troynikov,et al.  Evaluation of Flexible Force Sensors for Pressure Monitoring in Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders , 2017, Sensors.

[2]  Jason P Carey,et al.  The effect of biomechanical variables on force sensitive resistor error: Implications for calibration and improved accuracy. , 2016, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  Siegfried Derler,et al.  Anatomical hip model for the mechanical testing of hip protectors. , 2005, Medical engineering & physics.

[4]  S Blumentritt A new biomechanical method for determination of static prosthetic alignment , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[6]  D. Bader,et al.  Development of a residuum/socket interface simulator for lower limb prosthetics , 2017, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[7]  Olga Troynikov,et al.  Flexible Sensors for Pressure Therapy: Effect of Substrate Curvature and Stiffness on Sensor Performance , 2017, Sensors.

[8]  Anton Filatov,et al.  Static and cyclic performance evaluation of sensors for human interface pressure measurement , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[9]  Jan Andrysek,et al.  Evaluating and improving the performance of thin film force sensors within body and device interfaces. , 2017, Medical engineering & physics.

[10]  G. Bashford,et al.  Static versus dynamic prosthetic weight bearing in elderly trans-tibial amputees , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[11]  Miguel A. Labrador,et al.  Use of Wearable Sensor Technology in Gait, Balance, and Range of Motion Analysis , 2019, Applied Sciences.

[12]  Angus McFadyen,et al.  Dynamic interface pressure distributions of two transtibial prosthetic socket concepts. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  M. Ferguson-Pell,et al.  Evaluation of a sensor for low interface pressure applications. , 2000, Medical engineering & physics.

[14]  K. Behdinan,et al.  Evaluating the Effects of Load Area and Sensor Configuration on the Performance of Pressure Sensors at Simulated Body-Device Interfaces , 2020, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[15]  Lei Ren,et al.  Predictive modelling of human walking over a complete gait cycle. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.