You are on page 1of 18

Lab 7: Knife Testing for Osteoarthritis Through the use of a Force Platform

Written By: Ryan Betz

Group Members: Muyang Xu, Bri Perry, Jenna Taormina, Cristina Rascoll, Bianca Wyman

December 7, 2016 BME 3600W-004L

Introduction:

In the United States, there are two main types of arthritis that affect Americans. The two types of arthritis are osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Osteoarthritis is known as the everyday wear and tear that the joints experience. As Thitinan Srikulmontree states “Osteoarthritis most often, it occurs in patients age 40 and above.[1] He also mentions that risk factors can increase with older age, obesity, and having family members with osteoarthritis [1]. Obesity is a major issue within the United States so this means the impact of osteoarthritis is increased. Osteoarthritis is a major healthcare issue, as on average 27 million people are affected [4]. These people have nerve damage that can lead to stabbing pain as the cartilage between the joints is worn out. Osteoarthritis is a disease that is most prevalent in joints that are used a lot such as hand and knees along with loading joints like the spine and hips.

Another type of arthritis is rheumatoid arthritis. Unlike osteoarthritis, the main cause of rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease. The immune system acts faulty and attacks the healthy tissue. Rheumatoid arthritis attacks the cartilage in joints and causes the cartilage to become weak and in some cases non-existent. As stated by Eric Ruderman “Immune cells release inflammation-causing chemicals. These chemicals can damage cartilage.” [2] This means that the cartilage is affected in a different way than that with osteoarthritis, but the individual could have similar symptoms such as piercing nerve pain and limited mobility of the joints. People with rheumatoid arthritis have issues with moving their joints after a time of inactivity. This means that if someone did not use their hand for a bit, they might have some issues to start moving their hand without pain or stiffness.

Between the two different types of arthritis, there are many different types of treatments, but the symptoms really affect the joints. This means stiffness or pain could cause someone to have troubles with little activities such as cutting up food. Biomedical engineers can find ways in creating a knife that minimizes the muscle used by the participant while maximizing the force exerted. Through minimizing the muscle exertion that the participant has to endure, the force on the joints would be reduced and therefore the patient would be in less pain. In the lab through the use of a force platform and EMG sensors, this task of finding a design that minimizes the muscle exertion, but maximizes the force can be found. In the lab, two knifes were compared to examine the muscle activity and force exerted when a participant was testing. One knife was a traditional kitchen knife while the other knife was a knife that was designed for people with arthritis.

In modeling the two knifes, the use of a force platform along with the electromyography data collection system can be implemented. The force platform will examine how much force the user is able apply while the EMG is used to measure how much muscle activity is needed to apply the force on the platform. The lab helped to find the knife whose design put the participant in the least pain while being able to apply the greatest force possible. Through examining the two knives and the differences in the handle designs, biomedical engineers could find a way to improve the knife for better productivity when used by an arthritic patient.

Methods:

Throughout the lab, the goal was to use two different knives one was a traditional kitchen knife while the other was a knife that was made for someone with arthritis. Both knives were made by the same company, Dexter-Russell, but the designs set the knives apart. The traditional

kitchen knife is eight inches long and in the lab is known as V-Lo. The arthritis knife is eight inches long as well and is called DuoGlide in the lab.

The first aspect of the lab is to record the height and weight of the participant along with the name. After these aspects have been recorded, a conversion needs to be done with the height and weight to the metric system. The height needs to be converted from inches to meters while the weight needs to be converted from pounds to newtons. The conversions were done online and recorded as part of the data. The next aspect of the lab involved going over to the force platform and measuring the distance at which the user is from the table. This measurement is from the edge of the table to the center of the participant’s feet.

Next component of the lab involves placing the EMG sensors on the four muscles that are being examined. The four muscles are the triceps, biceps, brachioradialis, and palmaris longus muscles. The sensors are wireless and the arrow should be placed in the direction of the muscle. Before placing the sensors on the participant, make sure to use an alcohol wipe to remove any residue on the skin as this could cause the readings to not be exact. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the amount of hair on the participant. If the participant has too much hair, there may need to be hair removed before the sensors can have good contact with the skin and get correct readings. Through swabbing and removing hair from places where the sensor will be in contact with the skin, there will be less error associated with the numbers obtained.

The next step involves getting the software ready to record. The first piece of software to examine is the AMTI Accusway force platform. Before zeroing the platform and getting it ready, make sure to put a covering surface to protect the force platform where the knife will be pressing down. The platform after the cover has been applied needs to be zeroed to ensure that the readings are precise. The NetForce software needs to be set to record for 20 seconds. The next

piece of software to set up is the Delsys Trigno Wireless EMG sensor. The four sensors are placed on the muscles of interest and the software is opened. Once the software is opened, the EMG sensors have to be labeled to the corresponding muscles that they are attached to. Run the EMG software and do a trial run to make sure that the sensors are working and the recording time is the same as the AMTI platform. Press the “Start Test” and type in a file name at which the file will be saved. After this “Signal Preview” will pop up and make sure the signal is working and being recorded correctly before advancing with the experiment.

Now that all the software is calibrated and zeroed, have the participant grab the DuoGlide knife with the dominant hand that would be used when cutting something up. The knife seen in figure 1 is the DuoGlide knife and make sure the participant is standing 4-6 inches away from the force platform as this is a distance that mimics the normal distance from a cutting board. Have the participant place the knife on the cutting board when the operator of the software says to and press down on the force platform with the force that is sustainable for the 20 second period. Both programs have been zeroed and calibrated so they will shut off at the same time. This procedure of placing the knife down and pressing should be repeated two more times with 30 second breaks in between. Make sure the files are saved as Duoglide 1, 2, 3 so each file can be extracted later on.

Figure 1: DuoGlide Knife The next part of the experiment is to switch the knife to
Figure 1: DuoGlide Knife The next part of the experiment is to switch the knife to

Figure 1: DuoGlide Knife The next part of the experiment is to switch the knife to the traditional knife. This knife

can be seen in figure 2. Repeat the same exercise as before but now with the VLo knife for three

trials and make sure to save as something like VLo 1, 2, 3 to examine each file separately later.

Each trial will last 20 seconds with a thirty second break in between. This will allow the user to

be under the same condition as in the trials with the DuoGlide knife.

Figure 1: DuoGlide Knife The next part of the experiment is to switch the knife to

Figure 2: V-Lo knife

The lab part of the experiment was used to collect the data for the different knife trials

and see which knife is more efficient. The AMTI platform data for each trial should be exported

to an excel file with a different book for each trial. Find the absolute maximum for the X,Y, and

Z force along with the absolute max for the moments in the X,Y and Z direction.

The final step is to find the average of the EMG data from the Delsys EMG acquisition.

The average can be found by taking the root mean square of each signal using the “Root Mean

Square” function. Once found for each trial and for each muscle record in table for use later in

the lab. The table should be one that mimics that in table 4. This means for each muscle group

there should be six EMG readings. With the values of from the EMG found a ratio can be

determined. This is done by taking the forces and moments in the X,Y and Z direction along with

the moments in the X, Y, and Z direction and dividing these values by the muscle exertion

recorded by the EMG. An example would be dividing the forces in the Y direction by the muscle

exertion for each trial number (YDuoGlide 1/MuscleExertionDuoGlide1). The ratio obtained is

a crucial aspect to examine. The higher the ratio, the better the force to muscle exertion the knife

performs. Each component of data that is recorded can help to show how the knife design alters

the muscle required to generate a force. This can be shown as the force exerted on the board was

large while the amount of muscle energy needed was small. This data will help find a design that

is good for people battling arthritis.

Results:

Equations:

1)

2)

()

() ()

()

These are the equations used to find the ratios between force and mean voltage along with moments and mean voltage.

Table 1: Anthropometric data for participant in lab

 

Participant

Subject Name

Ryan

Gender

Male

Height (m)

1.879

Weight (N)

787

Distance (m)

0.711

Table 2: Table of the max forces in the X, Y, and Z direction for each trial with two different knives. These values were recorded through the use of an AMTI force platform.

Knife

Trial Number

Maximum Force in X-Direction (N)

Maximum Force in Y-Direction (N)

Maximum Force in Z-Direction (N)

 
  • 1 1.494

 
  • 3.950 35.311

 

DuoGlide

  • 2 2.059

 
  • 6.899 21.400

 
  • 3 1.681

 
  • 4.039 26.858

 
 
  • 1 1.868

 
  • 3.403 23.499

 

V-Lo

  • 2 2.477

 
  • 2.677 30.634

 
  • 3 1.868

 
  • 3.224 31.893

 

Table 3: Table of the max moments about the X, Y, and Z axis for each trial with two different knives. These values were recorded through the use of an AMTI force platform.

Knife

Trial Number

Maximum Moment about X-axis (Nm)

Maximum Moment about Y-axis (Nm)

Maximum Moment about Z-axis (Nm)

 
  • 1 4.103

 
  • 0.392 0.355

 

DuoGlide

  • 2 2.090

 
  • 0.235 0.343

 
  • 3 2.864

 
  • 0.549 0.343

 
 
  • 1 3.286

 
  • 1.021 0.356

 

V-Lo

  • 2 4.490

 
  • 0.943 0.482

 
  • 3 4.721

 
  • 1.728 0.445

 

Table 4: Table of Mean EMG forces for each muscle.

Knife

Trial

Mean EMG

Mean EMG of

Mean EMG of

Mean EMG of

Number

of Biceps (V)

Triceps (V)

Palmaris Longus (V)

Brachioradialis (V)

   
  • 1 ∗ 10 5

    • 3.63 ∗ 10 5

6.57

  • 1.35 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.18 ∗ 10 5

DuoGlide

 
  • 2 ∗ 10 5

    • 4.04 ∗ 10 5

4.22

  • 1.38 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.27 ∗ 10 5

 
  • 3 ∗ 10 5

    • 1.38 ∗ 10 5

3.89

  • 8.69 ∗ 10 5

  • 8.04 ∗ 10 6

   
  • 1 ∗ 10 6

    • 3.72 ∗ 10 5

3.84

  • 1.13 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.04 ∗ 10 5

V-Lo

 
  • 2 ∗ 10 6

    • 3.62 ∗ 10 5

4.94

  • 1.08 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.01 ∗ 10 5

 
  • 3 ∗ 10 6

    • 3.69 ∗ 10 5

4.66

  • 1.07 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.10 ∗ 10 5

Table 5: This table gives the values of the forces in the X-Direction divided by the mean muscle exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.

Knife

Trial

X

Force/Mean

X

Force/Mean

  • X Force/Mean EMG

X

Force/Mean EMG

Number

EMG of

EMG of

of Palmaris Longus

of Brachioradialis

Biceps (F/V)

Triceps (F/V)

(F/V)

(F/V)

 

1

4.1

∗ 10 4

2.27

∗ 10 4

  • 1.11 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

1.27

DuoGlide

2

5.1

∗ 10 4

4.88

∗ 10 4

  • 1.49 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

1.62

3

1.22

∗ 10 5

4.32

∗ 10 4

  • 1.93 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

2.09

 

1

4.98

∗ 10 5

4.86

∗ 10 4

  • 1.65 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

1.80

V-Lo

2

6.84

∗ 10 5

5.01

∗ 10 4

  • 2.29 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

2.45

3

5.06

∗ 10 5

4.00

∗ 10 4

  • 1.74 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

1.69

Table 6: This table gives the values of the forces in the Y-Direction divided by the mean muscle exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.

Knife

Trial

Y Force/Mean

Y Force/Mean

Y Force/Mean EMG

Y Force/Mean EMG

Number

EMG of

EMG of

of Palmaris Longus

of Brachioradialis

Biceps (F/V)

Triceps (F/V)

(F/V)

(F/V)

 

1

1.08

∗ 10 5

6.01

∗ 10 4

  • 2.92 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

3.35

DuoGlide

2

1.71

∗ 10 5

1.63

∗ 10 5

  • 4.99 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

5.43

3

2.92

∗ 10 5

1.04

∗ 10 5

  • 4.64 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

5.02

 

1

9.15

∗ 10 5

8.86

∗ 10 4

  • 3.01 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

3.27

V-Lo

2

7.40

∗ 10 5

5.42

∗ 10 4

  • 2.48 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

2.65

3

8.73

∗ 10 5

6.92

∗ 10 4

  • 3.01 ∗ 10 5

∗ 10 4

2.93

Table 7: This table gives the values of the forces in the Z-Direction divided by the mean muscle exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.

Knife

Trial

Z Force/Mean

Z Force/Mean

Z Force/Mean EMG

Z Force/Mean EMG

Number

EMG of

EMG of

of Palmaris Longus

of Brachioradialis

Biceps (F/V)

Triceps (F/V)

(F/V)

(F/V)

 

1

9.73

∗ 10 5

5.37

∗ 10 5

  • 2.62 ∗ 10 5

2.99

∗ 10 6

DuoGlide

2

5.30

∗ 10 5

5.07

∗ 10 5

  • 1.55 ∗ 10 5

1.69

∗ 10 6

3

1.95

∗ 10 6

6.90

∗ 10 5

  • 3.09 ∗ 10 5

3.34

∗ 10 6

 

1

6.32

∗ 10 6

6.11

∗ 10 5

  • 2.08 ∗ 10 5

2.26

∗ 10 6

V-Lo

2

8.46

∗ 10 6

6.20

∗ 10 5

  • 2.84 ∗ 10 5

3.03

∗ 10 6

3

8.64

∗ 10 6

6.84

∗ 10 5

  • 2.98 ∗ 10 5

2.90

∗ 10 6

Table 8: This table gives the values of the forces in the X-Moment divided by the mean muscle exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.

Knife

Trial

X

moment

X

moment

  • X moment /Mean

X

moment /Mean

Number

/Mean EMG

/Mean EMG

EMG of Palmaris

EMG of

of Biceps

of Triceps

Longus (F/V)

Brachioradialis (F/V)

(F/V)

(F/V)

 

1

1.13

∗ 10 5

6.25

∗ 10 4

  • 3.04 ∗ 10 4

  • 3.48 ∗ 10 5

DuoGlide

2

5.17

∗ 10 4

4.95

∗ 10 4

  • 1.51 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.65 ∗ 10 5

3

2.08

∗ 10 5

7.36

∗ 10 4

  • 3.30 ∗ 10 4

  • 3.56 ∗ 10 5

 

1

8.83

∗ 10 5

8.56

∗ 10 4

  • 2.91 ∗ 10 4

  • 3.16 ∗ 10 5

V-Lo

2

1.24

∗ 10 6

9.09

∗ 10 4

  • 4.16 ∗ 10 4

  • 4.45 ∗ 10 5

3

1.28

∗ 10 6

1.01

∗ 10 5

  • 4.41 ∗ 10 4

  • 4.29 ∗ 10 5

Table 9: This table gives the values of the forces in the Y-Moment divided by the mean muscle exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.

Knife

Trial

Y moment

Y moment

Y moment /Mean

Y moment /Mean

Number

/Mean EMG

/Mean EMG

EMG of Palmaris

EMG of

of Biceps

of Triceps

Longus (F/V)

Brachioradialis (F/V)

(F/V)

(F/V)

 

1

1.08

∗ 10 4

5.97

∗ 10 3

  • 2.90 ∗ 10 3

  • 3.32 ∗ 10 4

DuoGlide

2

5.82

∗ 10 3

5.57

∗ 10 3

  • 1.70 ∗ 10 3

  • 1.85 ∗ 10 4

3

3.98

∗ 10 4

1.41

∗ 10 4

  • 6.32 ∗ 10 3

  • 6.83 ∗ 10 4

 

1

2.74

∗ 10 5

2.66

∗ 10 4

  • 9.04 ∗ 10 3

  • 9.82 ∗ 10 4

V-Lo

2

2.60

∗ 10 5

1.91

∗ 10 4

  • 8.73 ∗ 10 3

  • 9.34 ∗ 10 4

3

4.68

∗ 10 5

3.71

∗ 10 4

  • 1.61 ∗ 10 4

  • 1.57 ∗ 10 5

Table 10: This table gives the values of the forces in the Z-Moment divided by the mean muscle exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.

Knife

Trial

Z moment

Z moment

Z moment /Mean

Z moment /Mean

Number

/Mean EMG

/Mean EMG

EMG of Palmaris

EMG of

of Biceps

of Triceps

Longus (F/V)

Brachioradialis (F/V)

(F/V)

(F/V)

 

1

9.78

∗ 10 3

5.40

∗ 10 3

  • 2.63 ∗ 10 3

  • 3.01 ∗ 10 4

DuoGlide

2

8.49

∗ 10 3

8.13

∗ 10 3

  • 2.49 ∗ 10 3

  • 2.70 ∗ 10 4

3

2.49

∗ 10 4

8.82

∗ 10 3

  • 3.95 ∗ 10 3

  • 4.27 ∗ 10 4

 

1

9.57

∗ 10 4

9.27

∗ 10 3

  • 3.15 ∗ 10 3

  • 3.42 ∗ 10 4

V-Lo

2

1.33

∗ 10 5

9.76

∗ 10 3

  • 4.46 ∗ 10 3

  • 4.77 ∗ 10 4

3

1.21

∗ 10 5

9.55

∗ 10 3

  • 4.16 ∗ 10 3

  • 4.05 ∗ 10 4

Discussion:

Throughout looking at the data collected from both knives, a large difference could be

determined in examining the forces and moments that were exerted. The forces in the X-

direction increased when switching between the DuoGlide knife and the V-Lo knife. The V-Lo

knife had a larger force applied in the x direction than the DuoGlide knife. In the Y and Z

direction, the forces from the DuoGlide knife were a little higher than that of the V-Lo knife. In

the moments produced by both knifes, the V-Lo knife produced a greater moments than the

DuoGlide knife. Finally, when looking at the force to muscle exertion ratio it can be seen that the

V-Lo knife produces a much larger ratio than that of the DuoGlide. An example can be seen

when looking at the moment in the Z direction. With the V-Lo knife seen in table 10, the force to

muscle exertion was 1.33*10 5 while the DuoGlide knife had a force to muscle exertion of

8.49*10 3 . This shows that the V-Lo knife had almost a 10 times greater ratio than the DuoGlide

knife.

In the rest of the tables, the force to muscle exertion is either the on the same magnitude

or in a couple cases the magnitude of the V-Lo knife is ten times greater than that of the

DuoGlide knife. This means that the V-Lo knife was more efficient in transferring the force to

the cutting board which makes cutting objects easier while not causing too much muscle

exertion.

The difference in the Z-forces between the DuoGlide and V-Lo is notable, but similar.

The reason due to the difference could be due to the design of the handle and how the knives are

crafted. The weight of the knives is different and this can cause the Z force to change. Knives are

designed in a way that allows force from the arm to be used to slice through objects. The X and

Y forces are different between the two knives where the one knife has a larger X force while the

other has a larger Y force. This means that the knife was uneven in the pressure being applied to

the cutting board on the force platform. One of the reasons that the V-Lo Z-force could be larger

than that of the DuoGlide is based on this instability of the knife on the surface. Another reason

as to why the forces in the Z-direction for the V-Lo knife are larger than that of the DuoGlide

could be based on muscle fatigue and the participant exerting more force than the DuoGlide

knife. The difference in force in the X and Y direction between the DuoGlide and V-Lo knife is

intriguing as the thought was one knife would have a larger force in both directions. This means

that based on the design and handle of the knife, the forces in each direction can be altered. The

Z-direction forces suggest that the internal forces on the joints are higher and this means that the

joints undergo more stress. For someone with arthritis, this means that the V-Lo knife would be

less user friendly than that the arthritis knife.

V-Lo produces the greatest force in the joints based on the Z directional force, this

means that the participant would experiences the most pain when dealing with arthritis. This is

due to any large forces in the joint causing the pain as the cartilage that would help to cushion

the loads is broken down. A higher force in the Z-direction would be attributed to force from the

arm being lost in the joints when pushing down on the force platform. The two directions that the

force also could be lost was in the X and Y directions where the instability of the knife on the

board was present. The instability of the knife is during the process in which participant is

pressing the knife down on the board and not able to hold a constant pressure which causes the

knife to shake within the twenty second period of recording. The higher the Z- directional force,

the less efficient the system is as the internal forces in the joints is higher.

Through examining the data, there are two components that are useful in comparing the

effectiveness of the two knives. These two components are the force in the Z-direction and the

moment about the X-axis. The biggest component that is being studied is how much downward

force there was on the platform and what type of internal reaction does this system put on the

joints. The force in the Z direction has an interesting component which is how much forces was

placed on the joints in the system. This is extremely important to examine as the internal reaction

that the joints experience could cause the participant a great deal of pain. For this reason the

design of the knife would be to minimize this value. Another component to examine is the

moment in the X- axis. This has Y and Z forces associated with the knife as these forces make up

the moment in the X direction. The Z force is the main force to look at from this moment as the

Z component helps to show the conversion of the force exerted by the arm to the force platform.

The Y force is interesting to look at as well as the knife may have slipped or become unsteady

and the forces in the Y direction help to see how steady the knife was applied to the platform.

The larger the force that the participant has to exert on the knife for the force to be greater the

more pain that will be produced so the goal is to find a design that maximizes the force

downward while minimizing the internal forces at the joints.

The suggested knife for a patient with arthritic pain would be the DuoGlide knife. In

analyzing the results, the DuoGlide knife produced the smallest force in the Z direction which

helped to minimize the internal forces that the joints had to be exposed to. The X and Y forces

were also a nice part of the experiment, but these forces were more of the excess force being

distributed across the force platform when applying a force to the knife. The knife does a great

job in creating a vertical force from the arm, forearm, and wrist to the cutting board. This causes

the forces internally in the wrist to be minimized and this is extremely important. This is due to

the cartilage being broken down along with nerve inflammation which causes the pain to the

patient to increase. The idea is to minimize the force that is exerted on the wrist as this would

create a knife that minimizes the pain for the patient. This is the goal of the DuoGlide knife and

through the abstract design created, the knife performed and minimized the internal stress on the

joints.

Some factors in the lab that may have affected the data include two things. One thing is

the distance that the participant stands away from the force platform while the other has to deal

with the height of the participant. In looking at how far the participant stands from the table,

there are a couple of factors that are taken into account. First, if the person stood farther from the

platform there would be different muscles activated for this trial as opposed to closer. Some extra

muscle recruitment could come from the deltoid to keep the arm straight and in the air. The

second problem with standing farther from the board is the force that the participant is able to

exert on the board. With the participant farther away from the board, the force applied is going to

be less than that of someone who is closer to the board. This is due to using the individual’s body

weight over the knife when the individual is closer in comparison to using mostly triceps when

the person is farther away. If the person is tall this can cause another change to system that may

change the results. This is due to the person that is taller might use more of their body weight

over the knife to create a force while the shorter individual will be using more of the arm

muscles if they are closer to shoulder height with the board. The height issue can have a similar

influence to the experiment as the distance from the table did.

Some sources of error from the experiment are mainly human errors. One source of error

is the participant moving during the experiment. If the participant moved from the first measured

spot the data might not truly reflect how much force is being applied internally to the joints. A

way to minimize this type of error is measure the distance for the person to stand and have them

stay there the whole time. The other individuals in the group can hand the person the knives

when switching so the distance between the person and the board stays the same. Another source

of error deals with operating the AMTI software. If after the trial commences, the individual

operating the system does not zero the platform, the results could be skewed and not give the

correct data. Even though the changes might be small, the precision will be low and the data

collected may not paint the correct picture as to how the knife performed. The last source of

error is associated with the EMG system. If the EMG sensors are not labeled correctly when

assigning which sensor is to which muscle, then the data collected would be wrong as data from

the biceps might be actually be from the triceps. This would cause the ratios to be all screwed up

and give insufficient data as to how much the muscles exerted in comparison to the force.

Another error that could be associated with the lab muscle fatigue as the experiment goes

on. This means that as the trials become later and later, the participant may not be able to supply

the same amount of force like in trial 1. This would cause the data to be influenced as the

experiment progresses which isn’t good. A reasoning is based on the muscles building up lactic

acid as the trials go on which means that the muscles will not be able to perform as well in

comparison to the beginning. A way to minimize this error is to shorten the trials so there is less

fatigue experienced by the muscle.

The final error can be associated with the similarity to the knife. If the participant was

used to a knife that mimicked the V-Lo knife, this knife would be more comfortable. This

comfort level could cause results that actually mimic how the knife influences the participant.

For the DuoGlide knife the participant did not feel comfortable with the knife and this could

have caused the data to be skewed as more muscle could have been used to apply a force to the

platform than that of the V-Lo knife. A way to minimize this error could be associated with

giving a few trial runs before testing to get used to both knives as this familiarity would give

results that mimic how the knife would be affect people in kitchens nationwide.

Reference:

[1]American, "Diseases and conditions osteoarthritis," 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Osteoarthritis. Accessed: Nov. 21, 2016.

[2]American, "Diseases and conditions rheumatoid arthritis," 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Rheumatoid-

Arthritis. Accessed: Nov. 21, 2016.

[3 ]Gielo-Perczak, Krystyna, Ph.D. “Lab#7W Knife Handle Design for People With Arthritis.” BME 3600 Lab. Bronwell, Storrs. 9 November. 2016. Lab

[4]R. Fleming, O. of Communications, and P. Liaison, "Handout on health: Osteoarthritis," 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.niams.nih.gov/health_info/osteoarthritis/. Accessed: Nov. 21,

2016.

Appendix:

Figure 3: EMG sensor on the Tricep of Participant Figure 4: EMG sensors on the biceps,

Figure 3: EMG sensor on the Tricep of Participant

Figure 3: EMG sensor on the Tricep of Participant Figure 4: EMG sensors on the biceps,

Figure 4: EMG sensors on the biceps, brachioradialis, and palmaris longus

Figure 3: EMG sensor on the Tricep of Participant Figure 4: EMG sensors on the biceps,

Figure 5: Demonstration of knife pressing down on force platform which is a trial in the experiment.

Figure 6: Example of EMG signal received through testing from the triceps. 18

Figure 6: Example of EMG signal received through testing from the triceps.