BME100 f2015:Group9 1030amL3

BME 100 Fall 2015	Home People Lab Write-Up 1 | Lab Write-Up 2 | Lab Write-Up 3 Lab Write-Up 4 | Lab Write-Up 5 | Lab Write-Up 6 Course Logistics For Instructors Photos Wiki Editing Help
OUR TEAM Name: Glenna Bea Embrador Name: Eric M Rhoades Name: Broderick T Laese Name: Chase Gregor Name: Ian Quinn Name: Nimisha Tanna LAB 3A WRITE-UP Descriptive Statistics Figure 1. Descriptive Statistics include average, standard deviation, standard error, p value, and r value in beats per minute for the heart rate recorded using the Gold Standard meter and the Spree device. Figure 2. Descriptive Statistics include average, standard deviation, standard error, p value, and r value in degrees Fahrenheit for the temperatures recorded using the Gold Standard meter and the Spree device. Results Figure 3. The graph shows the average beats per minute as measured by the Spree and Gold Standard device along with standard error bars. The p-value is the resulting value of the T-test. Figure 4. The graph shows the average temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit) recorded with the Spree and the Gold Standard device along with standard error bars. The p-value is the resulting value of the T-test. Analysis Heart Rate After viewing and calculating the results for the heart rate as seen in Figure 1, the Spree measured an average of approximately 88.31 bpm whereas the Gold Standard's average measured to approximately 88.92 bpm, thus from observing the averages it is hard to tell whether or not there is a significant difference. In order to address this ambiguity, a T-test is performed in order to see if there is a significant difference between the performance of the Spree versus the performance of the Gold Standard. The p-value for this given dataset is approximately 0.39, which is greater than the critical value p = 0.05 so we fail to reject the null and therefore cannot conclude that there is a significant difference between the two devices. The Pearson's r-value for this data is approximately 0.82 which shows that the two devices have a strong correlation as it is close to 1, but not a perfect correlation. Temperature Despite the accuracy of the Spree in heart rate, the Spree was unable to measure accurate temperature values. After viewing and calculating the results for temperature as seen in Figure 2, the average of the Spree is approximately 99.27°F and the Gold Standard's average is approximately 97.26°F, and because the values are close another test must be conducted in order to determine significance (in this case, a T-test is performed). Following the T-test, the p-value is approximately 4.69577E-77, which is less than the critical value of p = 0.05 so we reject the null and therefore conclude that there is a significant difference between the two devices. The Pearson's r-value for this data is approximately 0.17 which shows that the two devices have very weak correlation and further supports the T-test outcome that the two data sets are significantly different. Summary/Discussion Overall, it can be concluded from our study of the Spree headband that the device is mostly accurate at measuring the heart rate of its wearer when compared to the "gold standard" readings of a pulse oximeter. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Spree is a valid measurement device for hear rate. However, our findings suggest that the Spree falls short in accurately measuring the body temperature of its wearer when compared to the measurements of an oral thermometer. Because of this, it is safe to say that the Spree is not a valid device for the measurement of body temperature. This inaccuracy is most likely due to the fact that the Spree does not report a quantifiable value for temperature, but rather identifies a vague range that the wearer's body temperature fits into. The first aspect of the headband that could be improved is the comfortability of the device, or its ability to form better to the head of the wearer. Ian, who wore the headband for the testing, found it to be incredibly uncomfortable from the beginning, but even more so after he had to wear it for an extended period of time. In order to fix this problem, adjustable head sizes should be implemented to accommodate this functionality. In addition, a material integrated into the device that stretches may also be of use such as spandex (to increase its flexibility). Furthermore, the bluetooth connection between the phone and the device cut out on multiple occasions. On at least one of these occurrences, the disconnection was more than likely due to distance between the two devices. For this reason, it would be beneficial for the Spree to be equipped with a better bluetooth receiver with more range such as equipping it with a better sensor into the device. As was touched upon previously, as far as data collection is concerned, the Spree fails to deliver on the reporting end. Of all the data that the device collects, only a meager percent of it is actually reported on the app itself. The most glaring example of this is the Spree app’s failure to report actual body temperature. Instead of reporting body temperature as a value in a range (which shows to be inaccurate), the Spree app would do better to report the actual body temperature of the wearer itself. In addition, the cost of the Spree is extremely high, making it unlikely for the device to be used by a majority of consumers. In order to make the device cheaper, efficient yet cheap materials should be utilized so that the manufacturers can produce a product that has a more appropriate price for the market. The material used could potentially be changed, as the comfort level seemed to be low for the user. This change in material may lower the price, which would be more efficient. LAB 3B WRITE-UP Target Population and Need Image 1. Problem understanding form for this device Target Population and Need This device is created to help athletes, people with posture or feet issues, or anyone interested in learning where they place most pressure in their feet old and young with this innovative device. The tectonic sole allows the wearer to record how many steps they have taken along with where they place the most pressure when doing athletic or everyday activities. This device comes with a free smart phone app that enables those who purchase the product to keep track of their posture in order to prevent them from placing too much pressure on certain areas of their feet. The app comes with suggestions to improve the way they stand along with the opportunity to send their data to a lab so that an insole can be engineered to feet their feet specifically for maximum comfort and health benefits. Whether one is aware of it or not, the way we stand is not always the proper way, leading to back pain, muscle fatigue, and poor posture. The tectonic sole is aimed to educate and lead those who wear the product to healthier living along with important statistical data about the way their walk and move. This is beneficial because it allows the wearer to become more knowledgable about how they maintain their posture or to simply be more comfortable going about day to day activities. For athletes, this can be extremely beneficial in allowing them to keep track of where the most pressure is being placed on their feet while performing their athletic activities. With a bluetooth sensor, an athlete can compete in their sport and after the game can check their data in order to better improve their performance and also to decrease any injury that may occur in the field. The tectonic sole is comfortable, unnoticeable and is a must-have to include in everyone's daily routine. Device Design Images 2-4. Basic design for the tectonic sole. It comes in multiple layers that each have a specific function. Motto: Impact the world with one step Inferential Statistics Table 1. Inferential Statistics showing the average, standard deviation, and the correlation coefficient along with the standard error and T-Test value of the Tectonic Sole and Omron HJ-321 Tri-Axis Pedometer (which is used as the gold standard). A TTEST is used in this instance because it is a comparison of two sets of data: the number of steps taken between the device and the gold standard. Because the TTEST value is higher than the critical alpha of 0.05, we can assume there is no significant difference and that the device is reliable. Table 2. This table shows the comparison of the Tectonic Sole and the force plate for showing the main points with the most pressure on the feet. Similar to table 1, the data includes the average, standard deviation, standard error, Pearson's r-vaue, and the p-value in a TTEST. A TTEST was used for each portion of the feet because they entail different data. A post test is not needed because the data is a comparison of the impact within that specific area of the feet. Due to the fact that the p-value is significantly higher that the critical alpha of 0.05, we can assume that there is no significant difference and that the device is realiable. Image 5. This image shows the areas used to determine the figures in Table 2. Note: sections 3 and 4 were combined when running these tests. Image 6. This picture shows the main points that typically have the most pressure applied on humans. Graph Figure 1. This figure shows the comparison of the Omron HJ-321 Tri-Axis Pedometer and the Tectonic Sole in measuring the number of steps taken over a period of time. As shown, the correlation is quite close. The correlation coefficient is .910, which is strong. Figure 2. A bar graph displaying the averages between the steps taken between the Gold Standard pedometer and the Tectonic Sole's pedometer. Figure 3. A scatterplot of the Hallux and Lesser digits are shown in order to display the strong positive correlation between the Gold Standard's force plate and the Tectonic Sole's force plate. Figure 4. A continuation of the scatterplots with the metatarsals and the midfoot. Figure 5. Final scatterplot for the force plate in the heel. Figure 4. This graph compares the force plate and the Tectonic Sole's measurements of the points that have the most pressure applied on the foot.