Show simple item record

contributor authorJill M. Brimacombe
contributor authorDavid R. Wilson
contributor authorAntony J. Hodgson
contributor authorKaren C. Ho
contributor authorCarolyn Anglin
date accessioned2017-05-09T00:31:48Z
date available2017-05-09T00:31:48Z
date copyrightMarch, 2009
date issued2009
identifier issn0148-0731
identifier otherJBENDY-26901#034503_1.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/140006
description abstractTekscan pressure sensors are used in biomechanics research to measure joint contact loads. While the overall accuracy of these sensors has been reported previously, the effects of different calibration algorithms on sensor accuracy have not been compared. The objectives of this validation study were to determine the most appropriate calibration method supplied in the Tekscan program software and to compare its accuracy to the accuracy obtained with two user-defined calibration protocols. We evaluated the calibration accuracies for test loads within the low range, high range, and full range of the sensor. Our experimental setup used materials representing those found in standard prosthetic joints, i.e., metal against plastic. The Tekscan power calibration was the most accurate of the algorithms provided with the system software, with an overall rms error of 2.7% of the tested sensor range, whereas the linear calibrations resulted in an overall rms error of up to 24% of the tested range. The user-defined ten-point cubic calibration was almost five times more accurate, on average, than the power calibration over the full range, with an overall rms error of 0.6% of the tested range. The user-defined three-point quadratic calibration was almost twice as accurate as the Tekscan power calibration, but was sensitive to the calibration loads used. We recommend that investigators design their own calibration curves not only to improve accuracy but also to understand the range(s) of highest error and to choose the optimal points within the expected sensing range for calibration. Since output and sensor nonlinearity depend on the experimental protocol (sensor type, interface shape and materials, sensor range in use, loading method, etc.), sensor behavior should be investigated for each different application.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleEffect of Calibration Method on Tekscan Sensor Accuracy
typeJournal Paper
journal volume131
journal issue3
journal titleJournal of Biomechanical Engineering
identifier doi10.1115/1.3005165
journal fristpage34503
identifier eissn1528-8951
keywordsSensors
keywordsCalibration
keywordsStress AND Algorithms
treeJournal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2009:;volume( 131 ):;issue: 003
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record