ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Performance Analysis of a Lower Limb Multi Joint Angle Sensor Using CYTOP Fiber: Influence of Light Source Wavelength and Angular Velocity Compensation.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-Driven Approach for Upper Limb Fatigue Estimation Based on Wearable Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Accurate Prediction of Knee Angles during Open-Chain Rehabilitation Exercises Using a Wearable Array of Nanocomposite Stretch Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents the analysis of an intensity variation polymer optical fiber (POF)-based angle sensor performance, i.e., sensitivity, hysteresis and determination coefficient ( R 2 ), using cyclic transparent optical polymer (CYTOP) fiber. The analysis consisted of two approaches: influence of different light source central wavelengths (430 nm, 530 nm, 660 nm, 870 nm and 950 nm) and influence of different angular velocities ( 0.70 rad/s, 0.87 rad/s, 1.16 rad/s, 1.75 rad/s and 3.49 rad/s). The first approach aimed to select the source which resulted in the most suitable performance regarding highest sensitivity and linearity while maintaining lowest hysteresis, through the figure of merit. Thereafter, the analysis of different angular velocities was performed to evaluate the influence of velocity in the curvature sensor performance. Then, a discrete angular velocity compensation was proposed in order to reduce the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of responses for different angular velocities. Ten tests for each analysis were performed with angular range of 0 ∘ to 50 ∘ , based on knee and ankle angle range during the gait. The curvature sensor was applied in patterns simulating the knee and ankle during the gait. Results show repeatability and the best sensor performance for λ = 950 nm in the first analysis and show high errors for high angular velocities ( w = 3.49 rad/s) in the second analysis, which presented up to 50 % angular error. The uncompensated RMSE was high for all velocities ( 6.45 ∘ to 12.41 ∘ ), whereas the compensated RMSE decreased up to 74 % ( 1.67 ∘ to 3.62 ∘ ). The compensated responses of application tests showed maximum error of 5.52 ∘ and minimum of 1.06 ∘ , presenting a decrease of mean angular error up to 30 ∘ when compared with uncompensated responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.