ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Optimized Acoustic Phantom Design for Characterizing Body Sound Sensors.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diaphragm Design for an Electret Microphone Stethoscope.IEEE sensors journal · 2025Article
- Exploring Microphone Technologies for Digital Auscultation Devices.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Electrostatic Acoustic Sensor with an Impedance-Matched Diaphragm Characterized for Body Sound Monitoring.ACS applied bio materials · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many commercial and prototype devices are available for capturing body sounds that provide important information on the health of the lungs and heart; however, a standardized method to characterize and compare these devices is not agreed upon. Acoustic phantoms are commonly used because they generate repeatable sounds that couple to devices using a material layer that mimics the characteristics of skin. While multiple acoustic phantoms have been presented in literature, it is unclear how design elements, such as the driver type and coupling layer, impact the acoustical characteristics of the phantom and, therefore, the device being measured. Here, a design of experiments approach is used to compare the frequency responses of various phantom constructions. An acoustic phantom that uses a loudspeaker to generate sound and excite a gelatin layer supported by a grid is determined to have a flatter and more uniform frequency response than other possible designs with a sound exciter and plate support. When measured on an optimal acoustic phantom, three devices are shown to have more consistent measurements with added weight and differing positions compared to a non-optimal phantom. Overall, the statistical models developed here provide greater insight into acoustic phantom design for improved device characterization.
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.