# BME100 f2016:Group10 W1030AM L3

BME 100 Fall 2016 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

# LAB 3 WRITE-UP

## Descriptive Stats and Graph

 Temperature (degF) Gold Standard Spree Average 96.6527 95.53086 Standard Deviation 1.915518 0.869034 Count 326 324 Standard Error 0.106091 0.04828

Graph showcases the temperature average of both devices with an error bar of standard deviation.

 Heart Rate (BPM) Gold Standard Spree Average 98.08976898 98.940789 Standard Deviation 23.03054 24.83749 Count 303 304 Standard Error 1.32307 1.424528
```
```

Graph showcases the heart rate average of both devices with an error bar of standard deviation.

## Inferential Stats

T-Test Graph for Temperature (Paired)

```
```

Pearson's R:0.17295886

T-Test Graph for Heartrate (Paired)

```
```

Pearson's R:0.66626956

A two-tailled paired t-test was deemed most fitting due to the nature of the data and study at hand, paired because each data point is matched to a unique data point of the second sample. The correlation coefficient was calculated as well to further examine the relationship between the two methods.

With a p-value of 0.300 for heart rate measured by Gold Standard versus Spree Band, the difference between the two methods is not considered to be significant. This means that there is about a 0.3 probability of the two populations to be the same, in turn not allowing a significant difference to exist between them. The t-testing for the measurement of temperature using these two methods on the other hand, revealed a value of 1.42E-21, suggesting a significant difference in the two methods. This is an inference made through the very low p-value, which shows that the probability of the two populations being the same is extremely low. Similarly, the Pearson’s r correlation revealed values of 0.16 for temperature and for 0.66 heart rate.

## Design Flaws and Recommendations

In evaluation of the Gold Standard and spree headband Data it becomes clear that the Sree headband is with in accurate measurements in terms of Heart Rate. There was no significant difference between collected heart rate data by a pulse oximeter and the Spree headband. These findings were in fact within a statistically acceptable range. In contrast. the data collected for temperature by the Spree headband and a thermometer showed a notable difference. One possibility for this issue could have been that the Spree headband collects temperature data on the head as opposed to collecting core temperature samples. In contrast a thermometer data is collected by controlled internal means. Another possible factor in data collection error for the Spree headband is perspiration effects on the mechanism itself. One possible solution for this issue could be a more absorbent headband to aid in wicking moister away from the mechanism. A final factor in temperature error collection for the Spree headband could be exposure to outside elemental effects surrounding the device. If the ambient temperature reaches freezing the skin temperature of the individual with be effected as well, and in turn possibly effecting the information collected. One possible solution would be to relocate the band from the forehead to a more temperature controlled area such as inner arm.

## Experimental Design of Own Device

Experimental Design for Rebound Tips
This will be a paired t-test to indicate the difference between regular crutch tips and our group’s newly designed crutch tips. This will be to determine if there is a difference in the user’s experience of pressure from the crutch-to-ground contact between the two tips.

Crutches:
A group of 50 random people will be tested. Variations of all heights, weights, ethnicities, age as well as equal parts male and female will make up the experimental subjects. Our after-market tips will be used on the first run, and then the manufacturer’s tips will be used to avoid the placebo effect. A proper amount of time between runs will be allowed for the subjects to rest.

Comfort- The subjects will walk with crutches a total distance of 100 meters on a smooth, flat, hard surface. First they will walk on our tips for 100 meters Their opinions will be given on a review sheet on a scale of satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, and dissatisfied. Questions aimed to the subjects will include:
- Relief of pressure under the arms
- Comfort during use
- Stability
- Durability

Walkers/Canes:
A group of 50 people will be tested in the same manner as the crutches. This time the subjects will be equally male and female, but will be demographically selective. This portion of the experiment will lean toward geriatric people and those with disabilities, all chosen at random. Our after-market tips will be used on the first run, and then the manufacturer’s tips will be used to avoid the placebo effect. A proper amount of time between runs will be allowed for the subjects to rest.

Comfort- The subjects will walk with either the cane or walker for a total distance of 100 meters on a smooth, flat, hard surface. First they will walk on our tips for 100 meters, then walk on manufacturer tips. Their opinions will be given on a review sheet on a scale of satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, and dissatisfied. Questions aimed to the subjects will include:
- Relief of pressure on the wrists and hands
- Comfort during use
- Stability
- Durability

Performance- 10 subjects from the Crutches group and 10 subjects from the Walkers/Canes group at random choosing will test the tip in a variety of environments and surfaces on all three aids: crutches, walkers and canes. The environments tested on will include dirt, gravel, curved surfaces, sidewalks, and asphalt, all in both dry and wet conditions. Rigidity, deformability, stability, and the coefficient of friction will be tested on the product.