BME100 f2013:W1200 Group6 L3

BME 100 Fall 2013	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: Tracy Lopez Role(s) Name: Jenny Chen Role(s) Name: Nick Kilpatrick Role(s) Name: Alexander Bugarin Role(s) Name: Nayobe Bivins Role(s) LAB 3A WRITE-UP Descriptive Statistics Below are temperature readings from the oral thermometer and RAIING device that were collected from 14 groups. Our group calculated the mean, standard deviation and standard error for both the oral thermometer and RAIING device. We also calculated the correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) and t-test value between the two groups. On the other hand, listed below is our group's temperature readings for both the oral thermometer and RAIING device. The calculated average for the oral thermometer was 98.2°F, while the sensor device had an average of 96.4°F. In addition, the calculated standard deviation for the oral thermometer was 0.77, whereas the sensor device had a standard deviation of 1.15. Results The graph below illustrates the average temperature readings for both the oral thermometer and the sensor device. A standard error bar for each type of thermometer is also included. The error bar of the sensor device is higher in comparison to the error bar of the oral thermometer; this just proves that the sensor device gives inaccurate temperature readings. Analysis Our group ran a T-test to determine if there is a statistical difference between the temperature readings of the oral thermometer and the RAIING thermometer sensor. The result of the T-test was a p-value of 8.04846E-18; this value is less than 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was significant difference between the temperature readings of the oral thermometer and the RAIING thermometer sensor. This shows that the RAIING thermometer sensor is not very accurate. Our group also calculated the Pearson's r-value to see if the two types of thermometer are directly linked, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.021714709. We created a scatter plot using this information, and as depicted below there is a weak positive relation between the temperature readings of the oral thermometer and the RAIING thermometer sensor. Summary/Discussion Design flaws include the following: • The body temperature sensor is uncomfortable to wear. • The tape was difficult to put on. • We often lost the signal, even if only two feet away. • The device would say that it is connected although it can't read a signal. • It gave inaccurate temperature readings. • Removing the device was slightly painful to the wearer. • Several of the devices failed to produce any results. • Need to calibrate device before testing Recommendations on how we could improve the device: • Change the design of the body temperature sensor and make it more comfortable to the user. • Adding an adjustable strap, instead of requiring the user to tape it on the arm which is inconvenient. • Create an efficient way on how the sensor connects to the device. • Boost the antenna strength • Increase transmitter power The RAIING thermometer sensor had an average of 96.137 degrees Fahrenheit and the standard oral thermometer had an average of 97.566 degrees Fahrenheit. We calculated a standard deviation of 1.64 degrees for the RAIING sensor and a standard deviation of 1.03 for the oral thermometer. Overall, the RAIING sensor was shown to have a high standard error in relation to the oral thermometer. With a p-value less than .05, there is a significant difference between the actual and experimental values for the body temperature of our subjects. Furthermore, the sensor is not adequate technologically with the difficulty in connecting through bluetooth. There are some major design flaws that should be fixed and looked at for improvements. LAB 3B WRITE-UP Target Population and Need The targeted population for our T-Band product is towards anybody that has the use to measure their temperature constantly over a period of time. Such as concerned parents who want to constantly measure the child's fever over night, to make sure it does not go over the precautionary limit. Also can be of use to anyone that works out and wants to have their body temperature measured so they do not overheat during their exercise. Our product will be available in all sizes, including children's and adult's. Device Design Slogans: T-band, we fit you to a T! When comfort and accuracy are your highest priority. The device will be designed in two pieces. The first piece will be a armband attached with Velcro. The velcro will allow the armband to be adjustable. The band will be placed on the subject's upper arm and secured firmly with the Velcro. The red temperature sensors will be placed on the underside of the armband so that the sensors are next to the skin of the inner arm. A Bluetooth sensor will transmit the data to a second piece. The second piece is either a watch or any bluetooth device such as an iphone or android device. One option for the second piece will be a wristwatch. The wristwatch will display the user's current temperature. A second display will show output of the previous ten temperature readings in graph form. Inferential Statistics Graph The graph shows a linear relationship between the orally temperature and the T-band temperature. The R value of 0.55 confirms that there is a linear relationship between the oral and the T-band sensor's temperatures. The T-test had a p-value of 0.796; this value is greater than 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was not a significant difference between the temperature readings of the oral thermometer and the T-band sensor. This means that the T-band armband measures the temperature accurately and reliably.