| Literature DB >> 30563200 |
Andressa Rezende1, Camille Alves2, Isabela Marques3, Marco Aurélio Silva4, Eduardo Naves5.
Abstract
The quantitative measurement of an articular motion is an important indicator of its functional state and for clinical and pathology diagnoses. Joint angle evaluation techniques can be applied to improve sports performance and provide feedback information for prostheses control. Polymer optical fiber (POF) sensors are presented as a novel method to evaluate joint angles, because they are compact, lightweight, flexible and immune to electromagnetic interference. This study aimed to characterize and implement a new portable and wearable system to measure angles based on a POF curvature sensor. This study also aimed to present the system performance in bench tests and in the measurement of the elbow joint in ten participants, comparing the results with a consolidated resistive goniometer. Results showed high repeatability of sensors between cycles and high similarity of behavior with the potentiometer, with the advantage of being more ergonomic. The proposed sensor presented errors comparable to the literature and showed some advantages over other goniometers, such as the inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor and over other types of POF sensors. This demonstrates its applicability for joint angle evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: joint angle measurement; optical fiber sensors; wearable devices
Year: 2018 PMID: 30563200 PMCID: PMC6308979 DOI: 10.3390/s18124293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Polymer optical fiber (POF) curvature sensor with the sensitive zone. The optic fiber length is given by L and the optic fiber diameter is d. The sensitive zone length is represented by c and the depth of the cut in the fiber core is p.
Figure 2Test bench applied on the tests.
Figure 3Positioning of the POF sensor at the elbow joint.
Figure 4Results of quasi-static test for: (a) POF sensor and (b) potentiometer. The market point (blue points) are the values of the sensor response and the black line is the result of the linear regression.
Figure 5Results of the dynamic test for the 18°/s velocity. The blue line represents the potentiometer response and the red one represents the POF sensor response, in degrees.
Experimental results for dynamic tests realized in a test bench.
| Angular Velocity | Difference (°) | Standard Deviation (°) | Correlation Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18°/s | 5.75 | 4.18 | 0.989 |
| 36°/s | 5.71 | 4.54 | 0.987 |
| 50°/s | 4.95 | 3.97 | 0.989 |
| 80°/s | 6.03 | 4.35 | 0.989 |
| 100°/s | 6.48 | 4.48 | 0.989 |
| 140°/s | 7.48 | 4.06 | 0.989 |
| 200°/s | 7.93 | 4.17 | 0.989 |
| Mean | 6.33 | 4.25 | 0.989 |
Figure 6Results of the joint angle measurement for one participant. The blue line represents the potentiometer response and the red one represents the POF sensor response, in degrees.
Experimental results for dynamic tests realized in the elbow for each participant.
| Difference (°) | Standard Deviation (°) | Correlation Coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participant 1 | 4.66 | 3.35 | 0.991 |
| Participant 2 | 6.4 | 4.31 | 0.973 |
| Participant 3 | 6.06 | 6.06 | 0.989 |
| Participant 4 | 6.44 | 3.77 | 0.982 |
| Participant 5 | 6.08 | 4.32 | 0.981 |
| Participant 6 | 4.68 | 3.71 | 0.995 |
| Participant 7 | 5.07 | 4.89 | 0.984 |
| Participant 8 | 4.45 | 3.03 | 0.989 |
| Participant 9 | 4.06 | 0.36 | 0.999 |
| Participant 10 | 5.2 | 3.31 | 0.989 |
| Mean | 5.31 | 3.71 | 0.987 |
Comparison between sensors for joint angle measurement.
| Low-Cost | Portable | No Calibration Required | Good Repeatability | No Electromagnetic Interferences | No Reference System | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vargas-Valencia et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Arnaldo et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Umesh et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| OptiTrack [ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| EMGSystem [ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Biometrics [ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Proposed sensor | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |