Literature DB >> 19154074

Effect of calibration method on Tekscan sensor accuracy.

Jill M Brimacombe1, David R Wilson, Antony J Hodgson, Karen C T Ho, Carolyn Anglin.   

Abstract

Tekscan 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19154074     DOI: 10.1115/1.3005165

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  27 in total

1.  Lateral ligament repair and reconstruction restore neither contact mechanics of the ankle joint nor motion patterns of the hindfoot.

Authors:  Victor R Prisk; Carl W Imhauser; Padhraig F O'Loughlin; John G Kennedy
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Biomechanical evaluation of MPFL reconstructions: differences in dynamic contact pressure between gracilis and fascia lata graft.

Authors:  Olaf Lorbach; Alexander Haupert; Turgay Efe; Antonius Pizanis; Imke Weyers; Dieter Kohn; Matthias Kieb
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Increased patellofemoral pressure after TKA: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Ulf G Leichtle; Markus Wünschel; Carmen I Leichtle; Otto Müller; Philipp Kohler; Nikolaus Wülker; Andrea Lorenz
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Balancing mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty in vitro.

Authors:  Thomas J Heyse; Joshua Slane; Geert Peersman; Philipp Dworschak; Susanne Fuchs-Winkelmann; Lennart Scheys
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Medial stabilized and posterior stabilized TKA affect patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure distribution differently.

Authors:  Alexander Glogaza; Christian Schröder; Matthias Woiczinski; Peter Müller; Volkmar Jansson; Arnd Steinbrück
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  A Hydrogel Meniscal Replacement: Knee Joint Pressure and Distribution in an Ovine Model Compared to Native Tissue.

Authors:  Kristine M Fischenich; Hannah M Pauly; Jackson T Lewis; Travis S Bailey; Tammy L Haut Donahue
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  The effect of tibial tuberosity realignment procedures on the patellofemoral pressure distribution.

Authors:  Archana Saranathan; Marcus S Kirkpatrick; Saandeep Mani; Laura G Smith; Andrew J Cosgarea; Juay Seng Tan; John J Elias
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  How Do Hindfoot Fusions Affect Ankle Biomechanics: A Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Ian D Hutchinson; Josh R Baxter; Susannah Gilbert; MaCalus V Hogan; Jeff Ling; Stuart M Saunders; Hongsheng Wang; John G Kennedy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Bone Plug Versus Suture-Only Fixation of Meniscal Grafts: Effect on Joint Contact Mechanics During Simulated Gait.

Authors:  Hongsheng Wang; Albert O Gee; Ian D Hutchinson; Kirsten Stoner; Russell F Warren; Tony O Chen; Suzanne A Maher
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 6.202

10.  Dynamic contact mechanics on the tibial plateau of the human knee during activities of daily living.

Authors:  Susannah Gilbert; Tony Chen; Ian D Hutchinson; Dan Choi; Clifford Voigt; Russell F Warren; Suzanne A Maher
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-11-16       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.