BME100 f2017:Group11 W1030 L3

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Owwnotebook icon.png BME 100 Fall 2017 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
BME494 Asu logo.png

OUR TEAM

Name: Una Durkovic
Name: Teleah Hancer
Name: Jose Valejos
Name: Zoe Marmitt
Name: Anthony Elias
Name: Your name

LAB 3 WRITE-UP

1. Descriptive Stats and Graph.



BME100.1.jpg BME100.2.jpg

Summary of results

The P-value of the heart rates was 0.657461 which is not less than 0.05. In order for the heart rate data between the Spree and the gold standard to be statistically significant, the P value must be less than 0.05. The P-value for temperature was equal to 3.657x10^-20 which IS less than 0.05 meaning that the data for both devices was statistically significant . In conclusion, since the measurements for heart rate were not statistically significant, the accuracy of the Spree was relatively accurate when compared to the gold standard. The measurements of temperature were not accurate since the data between the gold standard and Spree were statistically significant. This conclusion can be further emphasized in by using Pearson’s correlation. 

The correlations between both the temperature and the heart rates were positive. But the correlation for the heart rate was much stronger compared to the correlation for temperature. The Pearson’s correlation for heart rate was .69 compared to that of .193 for temperature. The closer the correlation is to 1, the stronger the relationship between the devices. So the correlation for temperature shows that the relationship between Spree’s temperatures was not as strong as that of the heart rates.



Design Experiment of Prototype

Design an experiment to test your own prototype The purpose of our experiment is to test our myoelectric brace. What our myoelectric brace does is a.) provides motorized assistance to people suffering from impaired muscle function following a stroke and b.) provides physical therapy to those same people. What we’re testing is how well the brace works. We will be testing our prototype by having two separate groups: a control group and the test group perform 3 tasks 5 times each, to ensure results are consistent and not a fluke. Both groups will be made up of 10 people each. The control group will be post-stroke patients suffering from impaired motor function, and they will not be wearing our brace. The test group will be post-stroke patients suffering from impaired motor function, and they will be wearing the brace. The three tasks they will be performing will be 1. Grabbing a water bottle to their affected side and drinking out of it.(testing the range of motion of the brace-left to right and up and down) 2. Picking up a phone and putting it to their ear(testing both the range of motion-up and down-and how well it supports light weights such as a phone) and 3. Holding a metal rod shoulder length long  and rotating it 90 degrees clockwise and 90 degrees counterclockwise (testing both the ability to support the weight of a metal rod and its range of motion-ability to rotate). We predict that the test group will do significantly better than the control group because the brace will provide both stability and motorized assistance to the arm while performing the tasks.

We will then conduct the same experiments again after one year of continued physical therapy with the brace. The only difference will be both the test group will not be wearing the brace while running the tests. The reason they will not be wearing the brace will be to measure how much the brace has improved function of the arm as a form of physical therapy. Both results will be compared to get the final verdict. We predict that the test group will have improved from the first day of using the brace because continued repetitive-exercise therapy should form new connections in the neurons and strengthen the arms muscles/keep them for atrophying after the stroke.