BME100 f2013:W1200 Group2 L3

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
BME 100 Fall 2013 Home
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
Wiki Editing Help


Name: Amber Bengson
Name: Emily Mei
Name: Terri Bivins
Name: Chandler Varone
Name: Prycilla Jones


Descriptive Statistics

Oral Thermometer:

Inside Lab: 97.59971429
Outside Lab: 97.53809524
Standard Deviation:
First Time Inside Lab: 0.63605207
Outside Lab: 1.272688527


Inside Lab: 95.72285714
Outside Lab: 96.48214286
Standard Deviation:
Inside Lab: 1.823372527
Outside Lab: 1.39008197


The graph above shows values comparing oral thermometer readings both inside and outside of the lab to sensor readings inside and outside of the lab. There is a lot of overlap in the error bars, indicating that the differences in values are not statistically significant. The error bars for the sensor were also much bigger than the error bars for the oral thermometer readings.

(Well-labeled graph with error bars and significance)


(Perform inferential statistics described in assignment.)

Correlation coefficient (Pearson's r):

t-test results:
The result of the t-test between the oral and sensor measurements was a value of 2.18349E-13. The result of the t-test was less than 0.05, so the measurements of the device were significant, accurate within .000000000000218349%.


The average temperatures compared between the oral thermometer and sensor were within two degrees of each other and the standard deviation values were >2. The Pearson's r correlation coefficient is extremely low at .021714709, meaning that there is hardly a correlation between the sensor temperature readings and the oral thermometer readings. Generally, the sensor temperature and the oral thermometer temperature should have the same reading in degrees Fahrenheit. However, this was not the case for many of the experimental testing groups. It can therefore be concluded that these devices (RAIING) are not very reliable.

Some of the experimental groups omitted data from the experiment because the sensor was not working (due to battery issues, Bluetooth interference, moving sensors, etc.), so these groups also have to be taken into consideration when evaluating device reliability.

To improve the sensor, it could be designed smaller and have different placement to ensure that the sensor does not move as much and is not as uncomfortable for daily usage. It could also be named differently on the Bluetooth device for each sensor to ensure that you are connected to the right one instead of another user's sensor.


Target Population and Need

Our sensor device is targeted towards athletes and middle-aged women. Athletes are a great target population because they are active and feel the need to track their improvements at all times and monitor vital statistics in their own convenience like working out in the gym while looking at the device on their armband or in class viewing data using a phone application. Moreover, body temperature and calories burned may have a correlation and knowing this may help the user identify how much more work or heat loss is needed to achieve a specific body goal. Middle-aged women are another great target population because with age women become more conscious about their health. Keeping track of the heart rate and body temperature makes it easy for the user to avoid activities that could possibly overwork the heart and/or lungs and prevent from fainting if the user has a prior heart condition. Another need for this device in the middle-aged women population is when certain drugs are administered and body temperature and heart rate need to be carefully monitored.

Device Design

Inferential Statistics

The temperature results from our device, iWear, were compared to oral thermometer readings. The heart rate results from our device are compared to measurements taken from a pulse oximeter.

The average temperature from the 10 trials of the oral thermometer was 98.35, whereas the average temperature from the device was 98.35 as well. The t-test for temperature yielded a t-value of 1. The standard deviation for temperature values from the oral thermometer was .445346. The standard deviation for our device was .430116.

The average heart rate from the 10 trials of the pulse oximeter was 199.3, whereas the average temperature from the device was 199.7. The t-test for heart rate yielded a t-value of .167851. The standard deviation for heart rate values from the pulse oximeter was 1.494434. The standard deviation for our device was 1.337494.


The graph below shows the average body temperature as measured by the oral thermometer compared to the average body temperature as measured by our device. iWear average body temperature is pictured blue as indicated by the key, and thermometer average temperature is pictured in red as indicated by the key. Temperature was measured in degrees Fahrenheit. The error bars are very small because there was only a slight variation in values. This indicates that our device is incredibly accurate.

The graph below shows the average heart rate as measured by the pulse oximeter compared to the average heart rate as measured by our device. iWear average heart rate is pictured in blue as indicated by the key, and pulse oximeter average heart rate is pictured in red as indicated by the key. Heart rate was measured in beats per minute. The error bars on this graph were also very small, indicating that there was very little differences between the two readings.