# BME100 f2013:W900 Group14 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: Rachael BrardStudent Name: Andrew CableStudent Name: Austin DavisStudent Name: Omar EltohamyStudent Name: Max NobleStudent

# LAB 3A WRITE-UP

## Descriptive Statistics

The average oral temperature reading was 97.237 degrees F for both, the indoor and outdoor tests inclusive, while the data gathered from the underarm sensor gave an average of 95.0812 degrees F, giving a total standard deviation of 1.8886 between all collected data sets.


## Results

(Well-labeled graph with error bars and significance)

## Analysis

For Pearson's r test, we received a correlation of .1645 for our data
The t value calculated from our data was 26.38
We performed a two-tail t-test, with a result of 1.42*10^-17, a extremely low value.
Our t critical two-tail value was determined to be 2.08, as this number displays the value that must be exceeded in order for the difference between the means to be significant at the 5% level.
After performing an ANOVA single factor test, we received a f-value of 581.45, with a p-value of 3.16*10^-26, and a f critical value of 4.072.

Given the p value and r coefficient found through the T-Test and the Pearson's R test, it can be seen that the overall performance sensor that was being tested was significantly different than the values produced by the traditional thermometer, the readings from both often being an excess of 3 degrees Fahrenheit, which largely shows that the measuring of body surface temperature through the method utilized by the RAIING device, is not an adequate measure of actual body temperature.

## Summary/Discussion

(Please discuss the results and statistical analysis. State your conclusion as well as design flaws and recommendations.)

Overall, this thermometer and smartphone application combination did not prove efficient or accurate.

There were quite a few design flaws of the temperature device as well as the smartphone application. The under-the-arm thermometer was not accurate for internal body temperature at any point in time during the experiment. The placement of the thermometer is inconvenient, and the system of using tape is terrible for use in reality. The smartphone app's main design flaw was that while it records realtime temperatures, the graph of those temperatures cannot be analyzed for specific times. If a person were to use this application to their benefit, it would help to have access to the data points on the graph.

In order to enhance this device, we recommend certain changes or modifications to help produce a better device. As stated before, the device recorded temperature from an area of the body that was both not very accurate and quite inconvenient. As a result, we suggest the device be moved to an area with a stronger chance of accuracy, such as the mouth or forehead. In fact, the device can be reworked to act more as a headband, being more conveniently placed and more accurate than the underside of the arm. It would hold itself together and would not require the troublesome tape. Also, the app could add an option that allows the analysis of temperatures taken at specific times. One would be able to see the exact values of temperatures taken at different times, rather than try to infer using the graph.

# LAB 3B WRITE-UP

## Target Population and Need

Our new product, the "Headbandz Sweatie" is ideal for any active person over the age of 12. This product wicks away sweat while recording internal body temperature using a sensor on the band. This device is very useful for outdoor athletes. The Headbandz Sweatie is compatible with a smartphone application and the item itself will notify the wearer when their body temperature is above or below the acceptable average range. This headband satisfies all the needs of active individuals who wish to engage in rigorous activity without the worry of overheating, or of the stench of dripping sweat. Also, the headband is simple and quite fashionable, equally appealing to the younger and older generation.

## Device Design

The headband is constructed of fine, breathable, polyester ideal for capturing moisture secreted from the head during exercise or any other form of physical activity. Within the headband, interwoven between the fibers that touch the forehead, is a thermal sensor that accurately measures body temperature to a precision of plus/minus 0.01 degrees. There is also a transmitter that allows for wireless transfer of data from the headband to any smartphone. If the body temperature of the user begins ascending or descending at an unhealthy rate or to a potentially detrimental level, the built-in siren will notify the user of the danger. Overall, the technology integrated within the headband is contained within a reasonable and comfortable surface area and volume.

## Inferential Statistics

The average oral temperature reading was 97.936 with a standard deviation of 0.7505 degrees F for both, the indoor and outdoor tests inclusive, while the data gathered from the headband sensor gave an average of 97.809 with a standard deviation of 0.698 degrees F, giving a total standard deviation of 1.4485 between all collected data sets.

The relatively high standard deviation exists herein with both devices because the trials were performed in 3 locations in varying temperatures: room temp, a freezer, and outside (99 degrees F).
t-test: 0.281819
Pearson r: 0.97968
The results from the Pearson's r test exhibit a near certain positive correlation between the two data sets: oral and headband. Therefore the tests were both reliable and valid. With p values and r coefficients of such magnitude, it can be seen that there is no significant difference between the temperature measurements taken by the product and those that were gathered by the typical thermometer that acted as the test control.