BME100 f2016:Group9 W1030AM L3

From OpenWetWare
Jump to: navigation, search
Owwnotebook icon.png BME 100 Fall 2016 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
BME494 Asu logo.png


Name: Yassin
Name: Kolby
Name: Joe
Name: Aria
Name: Ross
Name: Your name


Descriptive Stats and Graph

Standard Deviation:

Heart Rate -

Gold Standard: 23.03054395
Spree: 24.83748725

Temperature -

Gold Standard: 1.91846255
Spree: 0.870378299


Heart Rate -

Gold Standard: 98.08976898
Spree: 98.94078947

Temperature -

Gold Standard: 96.6526994
Spree: 95.5308642

Correlation Coefficient:

Pulse Ox(Heart Rate) - 0.690806489
Thermometer: 0.19279809





Inferential Stats

T test:

Heart Rate: 0.427116193
Temperature: 1.09676 x 10-21

Spree on Heart rate:

Based on the data, we have concluded that the spree device is quite accurate when measuring heart rate. The standard deviation was quite high, but then again, we were measuring the two groups at pre/walking, walking, and at cooldown. When looking at the bar graphs, the average and the standard deviation range were almost identical. When we measured the Pearsons correlation coefficient, we found it to be at about 0.7 which is rather close to 1. When plotting the numbers in a scatter plot, they gave a relatively linear shape. This showed us that there was a correlation between the gold-standard measurements and the spree headband. Although there were some outliers at 0, for the most part, the scatter plot was quite consistent. Lastly, the t -test value was much larger than 0.05, and was measured to be at a value of about 0.43. Because the value is greater than 5%, it tells us that the spree headband is capable of measuring heart rate quite accurately, and there isn’t a significant difference between its measurement and the measurements of the gold standard.

Summary of Spree Temperature measurements:

Compared to the Gold Standard of temperature measurement the Spree has very poor performance. Looking at the data there is a significant difference between the mean and the standard deviations. When the Spree headband was plotted against the gold standard of taking body temperature on a scatter plot there was almost no correlation with the Pearson correlation coefficient being about 0.1928 which being close to zero means there is no correlation between the Spree Headband and the gold standard. When the two-tailed T-test was performed the value we got was extremely small on the order of 10-21, which shows that the Spree Headband took very poor body temperature measurements. With the data that we analyzed we came to the conclusion that the Spree headband should not be used to take body temperature readings because it simply does not take measurements with any accuracy regardless of the activity type, be it resting or during some type of exercise.

Design Flaws and Recommendations


A lot of the people in the market for a heart rate monitor would not want to wear a headband that looks like this. It is unattractive and bulky looking We recommend making it a chest or arm band instead of a headband


The headband would have trouble fitting under many helmets. Although it works for a cycling helmet, a ski, snowboard, or climbing helmet would prevent you from wearing it

Given that a lot of heat is dissipated through the head, wearing a headband can be uncomfortable during exertion. Again, we recommend making it a chest or arm band instead of a headband


From reviews online, users tend to have trouble with the connection between their headbands and digital apps. Especially for people using later IOS systems, the app does not perform well. We recommend improving the app so it will work for newer IOS systems.


The battery life of spree headband is really short. Ideally it would last 6-8 hours after it is fully charged, but in real life its battery life is shorter. Again, we recommend making it a chest band. This would allow for more room for a battery

Experimental Design of Own Device

Our device has 2 main functions, so we will test each with a separate experiment.

Experiment 1: Tamperproofing

Experimental group: patients using our medicine dispenser

Gold standard group: The leading brand of tamper proof medicine dispenser, the e-pill compumed

Experiment procedure: Load one of our devices and a e-pill compumed with placebo pills Set both devices to never dispense Have half the patients take home each device for one month Instruct the patients to attempt to extract as many pills as possible from the device, but to save them instead of consuming them Record the number of pills extracted from the device Switch which device each patient has and repeat

Experiment 2: Dose on time

Experimental group: patients using our medicine dispenser

Gold standard group: same group of patients using weekly pill organizer

Experiment procedure: Have the experimental group take their medication using our medicine dispenser for a month. Record the exact time they take each dosage. Then let the same group of patients use weekly pill organizer to remind them to take medicine. Record the exact time they take each dosage also. Compare the two sets of data and analyze them.