“Keep Your Chin Up” Progress Report

BME 401 Senior Design

Group 3 - Emma Huff, Thom Ellison, and Katelyn Miyasaki

30 November 2018
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Updated Scope...........................................................................................................................1

2 Updated Design Specifications...................................................................................................1

3 Sensors.......................................................................................................................................1

4 Feedback....................................................................................................................................6

5 Data Transmission....................................................................................................................10

6 Computer..................................................................................................................................13

7 Selected Solution......................................................................................................................14

8 Budget......................................................................................................................................15

9 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................16

Appendix A: Updated Design Specs............................................................................................20

Appendix B: Updated Gantt Chart................................................................................................21

Appendices C & D: Complete Pugh Charts.........................................................................attached

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 1

1 UPDATED SCOPE

The need statement has not changed.

This device will provide biofeedback to promote upright head position in order to improve quality

of life through increased comfort, the prevention of complications such as nerve compression,

and an increased ability to communicate and interact with surroundings. The device should be

usable in conjunction with many types of wheelchair headrests. Comfort, low weight, and safety

should be prioritized. To accommodate a wide range of ages and abilities, it is important that the

device can be adjusted for a variety of head sizes and positions. The target population is

children who function at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels III, IV, and

V, who are likely to have head drop.1,2 It should also be easy for a patient or caretaker to

operate wirelessly in conjunction with the wheelchair during therapy sessions. In April, a working

prototype will be delivered to the client Dr. Courtney Dunn, consisting of a monitor with a power

source to detect head position, software that interprets data from the monitoring device and

exports information to an accessible user interface, and a mechanical response to this data that

helps the patient improve their head position. Circuit diagrams, drawings, component lists,

software, and other documentation required to reproduce the device will also be provided.

2 UPDATED DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

Based on conversation with the client and research into the components of the device, four

needs were added to the list of design specifications: aesthetics, durability, response time, and

multiple forms of feedback. Also, some existing specifications were updated (see Appendix A).

The Gantt chart and team responsibilities have also been updated (see Appendix B).

3 SENSORS

This device requires a sensor that can detect the position of a user’s head and relay it to

another device. The following are sensor types that could be used.
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 2

Inertial measurement unit (IMU): IMUs consist of a combination of gyroscopes and multiple

orthogonal accelerometers, which can track orientation and rotation with respect to an inertial

frame. These are usually not good for tracking rotation along more than one axis; more

specifically, the IMU tracks angular velocity (gyroscope), linear acceleration (accelerometer) and

magnetic field strength (magnetometer) when applicable. These factors combine to give

measurement of two to six degrees of freedom. Though simpler, cheaper (~$20) units just

mount components onto a single board, more complex and expensive devices also include a

microcontroller and produce a serial output.3 An IMU could

be placed on top of the head for use, or the side as in Fig.

1. In general, small IMUs are wearable and unobtrusive as

well as suitable for real-time data collection and processing;

however, more sophisticated devices may be too bulky for

use near the heads of children.4 Many devices also have

Fig. 1: IMU or accelerometer
options for Bluetooth transmission, but these devices can positioning.

exceed $1000 in cost, making many infeasible.5 According to Dr. Klaesner, cheaper IMUs

should be suitable for this purpose and are reasonably reliable.6

Accelerometer: Accelerometers measure acceleration forces that are either static or dynamic;

while dynamic acceleration measurement allows for the analysis of vibration or movement,

static acceleration due to gravity allows the tilt of the accelerometer to be determined relative to

the earth. They are available in a three-axis board for measurement of tilt in an XYZ plane and

come in a variety of sensitivity ranges. To sense tilt and some dynamic acceleration, a

bandwidth of 50+ Hz is likely sufficient. These run on low power (milli- or microamps with 5V or

less supply voltage) and can usually be operated on a battery.7,8 Existing commercial products

use accelerometers on the upper back and back of the head to measure head position, but it

could also be placed on the top or side of the head as in Fig. 1. Interviews with some device

companies indicate that precise measurements may be difficult and labor-intensive.9 Other
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 3

reports, however, do not indicate this to be true, so the accelerometer is viable as a solution.6,10

These typically cost between $3 and $10 for a simple device, but do not give as much

information as is necessary to track and respond to an object in motion.3,11,12

Rotary Potentiometer: The rotary potentiometer has a

range of motion that is usually less than 300 degrees, but

can be extended to more than 360 in a multi-turn

potentiometer. As the dial is rotated, the resistance is

changed for either linear or logarithmic outputs.13 Such a

sensor would likely be placed somewhere along the side of

Fig. 2: Rotary potentiometer
the patient’s head, as in Fig. 2, measuring the angle of the positioning.

head and neck in relation to the torso. Though this sensor would allow for accurate

measurement, it may be intrusive depending on other assistive devices that may be in use.

There may also be some complications due to side-to-side tilting of the head, which could

damage the sensor or harm the user if rigid attachments were made. Finally, potentiometers are

relatively cheap at $1 - $15.14

Optical distance sensors and gesture sensors: Optical distance sensors, which use light to

measure the distance between objects, come in several varieties, varying in their precision and

range. The Time-of-Flight style (ToF) distance sensor can take measurements in unfavorable

conditions over hundreds of meters with centimeter-range resolution and sells for between $15

and $130.15,16,17 Gesture sensors incorporate IR and LED, sensing reflected light and

distinguishing it from the environmental light to sense specific motions. Calibration would be

difficult and would likely have to be tailored to the user. Device bulk is also problematic,

particularly for more accurate devices. These factors make optical distance sensors unfavorable

candidates for the device, with a potential exception of gesture sensors sold for around $25.18
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 4

Using IR light, gesture sensors can sense the location of an

object in 2 dimensions (~12” away, 3-4” on either side).19

Such a device would likely require external attachment like

that shown in Fig. 3, i.e. to a wheelchair headrest or mounter

device, significantly decreasing its versatility. Additionally, if

it can only detect one object (which appears to be the case),

Fig. 3: Optical distance
sensor positioning. interference from other objects could affect the results. Care

would also have to be taken to avoid placing the sensor in a place that the user could hit it, an

especially difficult task given the relatively small functional area and the need to keep the sensor

completely exposed and clean.20

Stretch sensor: Stretch sensors are made from an elastic

conductive material and can typically stretch to 1.5 - 1.7

times their initial length, changing resistance somewhat

linearly as it is stretched. Sensors typically cost around

$10.21 Though versatile, they are difficult to attach, not very

precise, and take several minutes to return to their original

Fig. 4: Stretch sensor.
length. These properties may make the sensors unsuitable

for the measurement of dynamic head movement. Due to the necessary positioning shown in

Fig. 4, there is significant concern that the force exerted by the sensor would interfere with

natural head motion in a negative way.

Pressure Sensor (piezoelectric): Piezoelectric sensors

decrease resistance in response to increasing pressure,

and are better suited to dynamic pressures.22 Such sensors

placed on the headrest as in Fig. 5 could detect the head’s

force on the headrest; however, since pressure is the input,

Fig. 5: Possible pressure
sensor locations (red).
contact would be required at all times for useful output.
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 5

They are also relatively expensive, especially when the potential force applied by the human

head is considered; even to sense 25 pounds of pressure, which is a reasonable force exerted

by a head, a sensor costs $10 - 25 with higher-end devices costing around $70.23,24,25

Strain Gauge: Strain gauges, available as a foil-like layer with input and output wires or as a

block-like load cell, vary their resistance as a function of applied force, converting it into a

change in resistance. Unfortunately, though inexpensive at ~$11, the devices are rather

intrusive and difficult to position in such a way that input could be converted to useful output.26

EMG: Electromyographic sensors such as a $30 one available on Sparkfun can be easily worn

on the head and neck and used to detect muscle activity, such as tensing of neck muscles.27

Though this could be useful, it may not have the necessary reliability based upon previous

personal experience and Dr. Klaesner’s experience.6

Digital Goniometer: Digital goniometers are designed to measure a physiological angle using

two semi-rigid arms attached to a device with an axis of rotation, to be used like the rotary

potentiometer shown in Fig. 2. Though it does output an angle on a digital screen, it may be

complicated to transfer this output to a usable form. Additionally, the goniometer presents some

of the same problems as the potentiometer in that they both may be difficult to place, could be

uncomfortable, and could potentially be hazardous with their rigid arms. Though fairly

inexpensive at ~$25, they offer few advantages over the cheaper rotary potentiometer.28

ANALYSIS – SENSOR

Table 1 (next page): Pugh chart comparing best solutions for a sensor mechanism.
Compatibility refers to general suitability for our device style, while input and output refer to the
suitability of those data types. Patient experience refers to overall usability in context, a factor
distinct from physical and visual unobtrusiveness which describe both physical invasiveness of
the sensor and its contextual aesthetics, respectively. Adaptability describes a sensor’s ability to
be used across a range of patient ages and abilities, including any assistive device that may
already be in use. Social intrusiveness is a factor designed to capture whether the sensor would
cause the device to be distracting or off-putting to others. See Appendix C for full Pugh chart of
all possible solutions.
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 6

Table 1: Pugh chart comparing best solutions for a sensor mechanism.

Criterion Potentiometer Optical Distance
Criterion IMU Accelerometer
Weight (Rotary) Sensor

Safety 10 10 10 7 7
Compatibility 10 9 5 5 6
Input 10 10 10 7 8
Output 10 10 5 8 8
Patient Experience 9 7 7 6 7
Durability 8 5 7 5 7
Physical Unobtrusiveness 7 8 9 6 6
Weight on Head 7 7 8 9 10
Cost 6 7 8 9 4
Visual Unobtrusiveness 6 7 8 6 9
Adaptability 6 9 7 5 5
Accuracy 5 7 6 8 7
Social Intrusiveness 4 9 9 7 9

TOTAL 807 742 657 700

Of the sensor solutions examined in Table 1, IMUs, accelerometers, rotary potentiometers, and

optical distance sensors had the most potential as possible solutions. Rotary potentiometers

pose some comfort and safety concerns since the use of semi-rigid components along the neck

would be necessary. The primary problem with optical distance sensors is a lack of appropriate

locations for placement that will not touch the user, since the face of the sensor cannot be

obscured. Though accelerometers and IMUs are relatively similar in score, IMUs have all of the

benefits of accelerometers (since accelerometers are included in the unit) along with added

capabilities due to the gyroscope. Thus, an IMU will be used in the final product.

4 FEEDBACK

Safety is the first priority for feedback. The feedback must also be motivating - many patients

with head drop have visual impairments or other issues that decrease motivation to maintain

upright head position. Furthermore, it should be instantaneous in response to changes in head

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 7

position to allow for quick improvement and understanding of the desire head position.29 The

device should be light and should not be intrusive (interfere with the surrounding environment).

This is also important for avoiding social stigma.

Smell: Smell is likely the least useful sense for biofeedback. Pleasant scents are unlikely to be

useful feedback because they are unlikely to be highly motivating and do not start or stop at

precise intervals, making instantaneous feedback impossible. Another potential smell-based

feedback could come from pheromones. While studies support the existence of human

pheromones and their influence on behavior, their function seems to be tied to reproduction,

and they could not be consciously referenced to modify one’s behavior.30

Taste: Taste is also a potential, if unlikely, route to provide biofeedback on head position. One

option would be to develop a device to inject sugar water or another flavored liquid into a

patient’s mouth at regular intervals when proper head position is maintained. However, there

are serious safety concerns: the device might be a choking hazard and anything consumed

must be safe.

TOUCH: Tactile sensations such as vibrations, electrical stimulation, and pressure are another

consideration. Potential touch-based feedback mechanisms are divided into two categories,

corrective and non-corrective. Corrective touch is any feedback that helps manipulate the head

back into position when the sensor indicates that it has dropped, and non-corrective touch only

signals to the user that their head is out of position.

CORRECTIVE TOUCH

Inflating sacs: If the head drops towards the left shoulder, an inflatable pouch or sac on or

near the left shoulder could inflate via compressed air, moving the head up and providing a

noticeable push that would serve as feedback to the user.

Pneumatics: Another solution is for cushioned pneumatic motors to push the head back into

position when head drop is detected, providing feedback and correction. Both inflating sacs
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 8

and pneumatic motors are infeasible for use due to safety concerns with pushing the sensitive

head and neck.

NON-CORRECTIVE TOUCH

Tongue Display Unit: One study provided electrical stimulation in different locations on

subjects’ tongues using a “Tongue Display Unit” in order to indicate a direction.31 However,

this device may be difficult to set up, and is likely impractical for at-home use.

Vibration: Many commercial posture devices make use of vibration as a source of feedback.

A small device vibrating against the skin (in a location such as the back, chest, or wrist) would

indicate to the user that their head position was out of alignment and prompt correction.

Temperature: There are many existing devices that apply either cold or heat to the body, for

varying purposes. Some of these include hot/cold massage devices, heat packs, or

evaporative cooling fans. Depending on a user’s preference, one of these devices could

provide a positive stimulus in the form of heat or cooling in response to proper head position.

However, this is unlikely to be very motivating.

AUDIO: Audio-based feedback is relatively safe and easy to provide to patients. However, it is

important to consider several different ways of providing audio feedback.

Headphones: In order for patients to have motivation to maintain proper head position, music

or other sounds that they enjoy could be played when proper head position is detected by the

sensor. The most obvious solution would be to play music through headphones or earbuds.

Speaker: Another potential way music or pleasant sounds could be used to motivate better

head position is for a small speaker to be placed near where the head is located with upright

head position. In order to hear the music, the patient must bring their head upright. However,

this may be disruptive to the surrounding environment, as others can hear the music.

VISUALS: Similarly to audio, visuals are generally fairly safe, but how they are provided varies.

Video: By setting up a screen (such as on a tablet or a phone), visuals could be provided in

response to proper head position. For these purposes, a television show or YouTube video
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 9

(specific media would be chosen for each patient) would play on the screen when upright head

position is maintained in order to encourage that upright head position.

Lights: Perhaps the simplest form of visual feedback, a light could be turned on or off when

proper head position is detected to reward successful head positioning.

Combinations: Combinations of feedback types (most commonly video and audio) or otherwise

immersive feedback are more effective than a single type of feedback alone.29 For this reason,

video and audio from headphones will be considered together as an additional category. Lights

and audio through headphones, along with haptics and audio through headphones, will also be

considered as their own categories.

Virtual Reality: A virtual reality (VR) device such as the Oculus Rift could be used to provide

both video and audio feedback. Unfortunately, a VR system would be cost-prohibitive and likely

too heavy, placing additional load on an already dropped head.

ANALYSIS – FEEDBACK

Table 2: Pugh chart comparing the best solutions for a feedback mechanism. Adaptability refers
to potential for use for different groups, including those with visual impairment and other sensory
problems. Intrusiveness refers to the impact of the device on the surrounding environment.
Audio Audio Audio
Criterion Audio Audio
Criterion Video Lights Haptics and and and
weight (headphones) (speaker)
light video haptics
Safety 10 10 9 9 9 10 9 9 9
Motivation 10 9 4 9 7 3 8 10 8
Weight on head 7 10 10 6 10 10 6 6 6
Cost 6 4 10 8 6 10 8 3 8
Aesthetics 6 8 8 9 7 10 8 8 9

Adaptability 6 5 7 9 7 10 9 9 10
Multiple sources
of feedback 5 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10
Fast feedback 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Intrusiveness 4 5 7 10 7 9 7 10 9
TOTAL 427 423 463 423 461 480 482 500
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 10

Many children who have head drop and use wheelchairs have some form of visual

impairment.1,32 For this reason, visual feedback lacks adaptability to different patients, and falls

behind audio and haptic sources of feedback. However, audio and video provide a reason for a

child to lift their head, while lights and haptics do not. Audio through headphones surpasses

audio through a speaker primarily due to better motivation, cost, and adaptability for different

users. Audio feedback and haptic feedback were the highest individually rated forms of

feedback, and audio combined with haptics had the highest overall rating since multiple forms of

feedback together tend to improve patient results.29 For this reason, the device will incorporate

both audio and haptic feedback. See Appendix D for full Pugh chart of all possible solutions.

5 DATA TRANSMISSION

The device must be able to transfer data from the sensor to the computer, then from the

computer to the feedback component. This transfer must not interfere with the user’s experience

while using the device and should use a low amount of power so that the device does not need

frequent charging. The sensor will be moving, so it is also important that the device is able to

transfer data over a range of distances without losing information. This data transfer also needs

to happen in a reasonable amount of time and the transmitter should not be prohibitively

expensive. Data communication is fairly complex, so it is also important that the system is not

too difficult to design given project limitations.

Wire & Optical Fiber: Simple wired connections are cheap and fast, and do not need power to

function. Copper wire costs less than $1 per meter and can transfer data at between 100 Mb/s

and 1 Gb/s.33, 34 However, it is prone to becoming disconnected or breaking and the need for

physical connection limits the mobility and range of the connected elements, making the device

hard to use. Optical fiber is even faster and more durable, reaching 10 Gb/s.33 However, no

appropriate sensors were found that were compatible with optical fiber.
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 11

BLUETOOTH: Bluetooth wirelessly transmits data over relatively short distances. The lack of

wires is good for mobility and user experience, and it has low power consumption. Many

sensors have Bluetooth connectivity built-in, making it easy to design with. This report uses

specifications for Bluetooth 4.0, the preferred version because there are many existing devices

and tutorials for it.

Standard Bluetooth: Standard Bluetooth is designed for continuous data streaming so it is

especially effective for video streaming and file transfers.35 The optimum data rate is 24 Mb/s,

though this varies highly based on device specifications. It can reach approximately 100 m, as

far as Wi-Fi, and draws less than 30 mA.35, 36

Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE): BLE is a low-power, low-range version of Bluetooth introduced

in Bluetooth 4.0 which remains in sleep mode until a connection is initiated, at which point it

achieves a data rate of up to 1 Mb/s. It draws less than 15 mA and can reach approximately

50 m.35, 36 BLE is commonly used for medical monitoring devices like blood pressure monitors

and is compatible with Raspberry Pi 3. It is not as powerful as standard Bluetooth, but is

desirable for these devices because the battery can last for up to 4-5 years.37

Infrared: Infrared (IR) data transfer is very reliable, with bit error rates of <10-11, and it is

unobtrusive because it is wireless and invisible to the human eye.38 IR LED transmitters and

receivers have a long range (up to 50 m) and are affordable and fairly simple. Their data rate is

tied to distance, and at distances relevant to this project, IR reaches up to 1 Gb/s.39 However, it

is directional and requires a line-of-sight connection, so it would be difficult and inconvenient to

use on a head which changes position often.

Zigbee: Zigbee is a mesh network which is similar to Bluetooth in that it transmits data

wirelessly over a short distance, but it uses so little power that it can run for months at a time.

However, it is not a viable option because it has a very low data rate (250 kb/s) and is not

compatible with the sensors the device will use.40

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 12

Wi-Fi: Wi-Fi is a local network where devices connect to a central hub. There are many several

Wi-Fi standards which have different speeds, from 11 to 54 Mb/s, so it can be either slower or

faster than Bluetooth. All standards have approximately a 100m range, but they have very high

power consumption, lasting less than ten hours.40 Wi-Fi networks are fairly easy to set up and

are comparable in price to Bluetooth, and most homes and schools already have one.

ANALYSIS – DATA TRANSMISSION

Table 3: Pugh chart comparing methods of data transmission. Ease of design is the difficulty of
designing a system with a given method. UX is the user experience in terms of intrusiveness
and ease of use. Reliability is the ability to transfer data without bit or packet errors. Speed of
transfer is determined by the data rate. Power is determined by the amount of current drawn.
Range is the distance over which the method can effectively transfer data. Cost is the price of
any sensors, receivers, or other components.
Criterion Regular Copper Low Energy
Criterion Optic fiber Infrared Zigbee Wi-Fi
Weight Bluetooth wire Bluetooth

Ease of
3 8 3 1 8 5 4 6
design

UX 10 9 2 2 10 4 10 10

Reliability 7 7 10 10 7 10 7 8

Speed of
5 7 8 10 5 9 2 8
transfer

Power 9 6 10 9 10 10 10 2

Range 7 10 1 1 8 4 6 10
Cost 6 9 7 7 9 10 5 9
TOTAL 376 278 273 398 348 333 356

Copper wire and optical fiber are unsurprisingly the lowest scorers, as they excel only in speed,

which is the least important category. Wi-Fi is superior in range and speed to Bluetooth, but high

power consumption rules it out. Zigbee and IR are potential alternatives to Bluetooth, but it

would be difficult to use IR in a moving device and Zigbee is not fast enough and lacks

Bluetooth’s broad compatibility. Finally, BLE is slightly superior to standard Bluetooth due to low

power consumption. Its shorter range and slower data transfer are sufficient for the device.
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 13

6 COMPUTER

The computer will process data from the sensor to determine the feedback response. It should

be powerful enough to handle the calculations required, but since this device only processes

data from one sensor, any of the three options listed would be sufficient. Therefore, cost is the

first priority, followed by speed and size. The computer must also be able to store enough data

to perform analysis of the user’s behavior.

Small Laptop: A small laptop like a netbook is slower than a smartphone (1.6 GHz), large

(around 10”x15”), expensive (at least $180), and has limited storage (typically 16 GB).41

Raspberry Pi (Single-board computer): Raspberry Pi is the cheapest and smallest computer

considered, at 3.3”x2.2” and around $35. It has decent processing power (1.4 GHz) and can

hold up to a 64 GB SD card (although this card adds around $15 to the price).42 Raspberry Pi 3

also has BLE built in.

Smartphone: Smartphones cost above $500, which is prohibitively expensive, though many

users will already own a smartphone. Smartphones are the fastest type of computer considered,

with Apple, Samsung, and Pixel phones all averaging around 2.4 GHz. They also have the most

storage, typically at least 64 GB.43

ANALYSIS - COMPUTER

Table 4: Pugh chart comparing computers. Cost is the price of the unit. Speed is determined by
the processor speed. Size is the footprint of the device itself. Storage is the memory space of
the device.

Criterion Criterion Weight Small laptop Raspberry Pi Phone

Cost 10 5 9 3

Speed 8 7 6 9
Size 8 3 9 7
Storage 5 5 8 10
TOTAL 155 250 208
The importance of cost and the fact that a single-board computer is more than sufficient for this

project means that the device will use a Raspberry Pi or another single-board computer.
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 14

7 SELECTED SOLUTION

Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 demonstrate the selection process for each component of the device. This

device will detect head position through an IMU and transmit data through BLE to a Raspberry

Pi, which will analyze the IMU data. If the head position is upright enough, with standards of

head position determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the capabilities of each user,

then personalized audio feedback will be played through Bluetooth headphones or earbuds and

haptic feedback will be provided by a haptic motor connected to an Arduino Uno (Fig. 6). The

feedback itself will also be adjustable - the client has stated that for more advanced users,

providing feedback when the head drops instead of while it is upright may be more productive.32

For example, an unpleasant sound, such as a siren or a buzzing noise, could indicate to a

patient that their head position was incorrect and encourage them to improve their posture.

Studies such as Leiper et al. suggest that this sort of feedback is effective for helping patients

improve their head position.44

Fig. 6: Block diagram for the chosen solution. Audio will be delivered by
Bluetooth earbuds or headphones, and a vibration motor controlled by an
Arduino Uno will deliver haptic feedback.

The prototyping process will address some of the design specifications, such as how easy it is

to put on the device, expandability for different user sizes, and comfort. Since the ideal
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 15

placement of the IMU will be determined during prototyping and haptic motor placement may

depend on individual users, the precise placement of each component cannot yet be decided.

8 BUDGET

The estimated cost of the prototype is $175, with the breakdown shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Budget for chosen solution. Estimates are approximate and based upon part costs
found during research. Materials used to connect electronics have not been as thoroughly
researched at this point and represent what is expected based on current understanding.

Item (shipping included) Cost ($)

IMU 30

Raspberry Pi 40

64 GB SD Card 15

Arduino Uno 25

Vibration motor & controller 10

Bluetooth headphones 15

Fabric, wire, building materials 40

TOTAL 175

We are requesting that the BME department provide $100 of our budget, since the critical

electronic components (IMU, Raspberry Pi, Arduino, vibration motor) will cost at least that much.

Our client has previously stated willingness to help fund the project, so we expect she will

provide some of the budget.

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 16

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. K. Lammers, personal communication, November 21, 2018.

2. Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). Retrieved from

https://research.cerebralpalsy.org.au

3. Accelerometer, Gyro and IMU Buying Guide. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/pages/accel_gyro_guide

4. Rodríguez-Martín, D., Pérez-López, C., Samà, A., Cabestany, J., & Català, A. (2013). A

wearable inertial measurement unit for long-term monitoring in the dependency care

area. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 13(10), 14079-14104.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s131014079

5. ABOUT IMU Sensor. Retrieved from https://imeasureu.com/imu-sensor/

6. Joe Klaesner, personal communication, November 25, 2018.

7. A beginner’s guide to accelerometers. Retrieved from

https://www.dimensionengineering.com/info/accelerometers

8. Corinne, Toni. (n.d.) Accelerometer Basics. Retrieved from

https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/accelerometer-basics/all

9. Alex Gomberg (Upright company), phone call, November 6, 2018.

10. Cutter Coryell (Opter company), email communication, November 12, 2018.

11. 3-Axis MEMS Accelerometer - MMA8452Q. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10953

12. SparkFun Triple Axis Accelerometer Breakout - MMA8452Q. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/12756

13. Potentiometers. Retrieved from https://www.electronics-

tutorials.ws/resistor/potentiometer.html

14. Rotary Potentiometer - 10k Ohm, Linear. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9939
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 17

15. SparkFun Distance Sensor Breakout - RFD77402 Qwiic. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/14539

16. LIDAR-Lite v3. Retrieved from https://www.sparkfun.com/products/14032

17. Optical distance measurement. Retrieved from

https://www.ipm.fraunhofer.de/en/bu/object-shape-detection/expertise/optical-distance-

measurement.html

18. ZX Distance and Gesture Sensor. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13162

19. SparkFun Electronics (2017, Jun 1). Product Showcase: ZX Distance and Gesture Sensor

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxOAmn9VHO0

20. European Editors (2016, May 10). Smart Sensors Light the Way Towards Gesture

Recognition. Retrieved from

https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/may/smart-sensors-light-the-way-

towards-gesture-recognition

21. Conductive Rubber Cord Stretch Sensor + extras! Retrieved from

https://www.adafruit.com/product/519

22. Kaur, Kal (2012, Jul 25). Piezoelectric Sensor Technology. Retrieved from

https://www.azosensors.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=36

23. FlexiForce Pressure Sensor - 25lbs. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11207

24. Qwiic Pressure Sensor - LPS25HB. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/14767

25. Compression Load Cell - FC2231-0000-0100-L. Retrieved from

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/15065

26. What is a Strain Gauge? Introduction to strain gauges. Retrieved from

https://www.omega.com/prodinfo/strain-gauges.html
 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 18

27. MyoWare Muscle Sensor. Retrieved from https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13723

28. Medigauge Electronic Digital Goniometer for Orthopaedics, Orthopedics, Chiropractic,

Sports Medicine, Animal Science, Occupational Therapy OT, Physical Therapy PT,

Research. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Medigauge-Orthopaedics-

Orthopedics-Chiropractic-Occupational/dp/B00VJ91I8O

29. MacIntosh, A., Lam, E., Vigneron, V., Vignais, N., & Biddiss, E. (2018). Biofeedback

interventions for individuals with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Disability and

Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1468933

30. Mostafa, T., El Khouly, G., & Hassan, A. (2011). Pheromones in sex and reproduction: Do

they have a role in humans? Cairo University Journal of Advanced Research, 3(1), 1-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2011.03.003

31. Vuillerme, N., Chenu, O., Pinsault, N., Fleury, A., Demongeot, J., & Payan, Y. (2008). Can

a plantar pressure-based tongue-placed electrotactile biofeedback improve postural

control under altered vestibular and neck proprioceptive conditions? Neuroscience,

155(1), 291-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.05.018.

32. C. Dunn, personal communication, November 19, 2018.

33. Koditek, F. (2013, December 3). Copper vs. fiber wire in cable design. Retrieved from

https://www.wireandcabletips.com

34. 1.5mm copper wire price per meter. From https://www.alibaba.com

35. (2013, August 26). Bluetooth Basics. Retrieved from https://learn.sparkfun.com

36. Bluetooth vs BLE-difference between Bluetooth and BLE(Bluetooth Low Energy).

Retrieved from http://www.rfwireless-world.com

37. Ray, B. (2015, November 1). Bluetooth Vs. Bluetooth Low Energy: What’s the Difference?

Retrieved from https://www.link-labs.com

38. Scholles, M. Data transmission via infrared light. Retrieved from https://frauenhofer.de

39. (2013, February 7). IR Communication. Retrieved from https://learn.sparkfun.com

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 19

40. Ray, B. (2015, November 2). The ZigBee Vs. WiFi Battle For M2M Communication.

Retrieved from https://www.link-labs.com

41. Acer Flagship CB3-532 15.6" HD Premium Chromebook. From https://www.amazon.com

42. Raspberry Pi RASPBERRY PI 3 MODEL B+. From https://www.amazon.com

43. Comparison of smartphones. From http://en.wikipedia.org

44. Leiper, C.I., Miller, A., Lang, J., & Herman, R. (1981). Sensory feedback for head control

in cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 61(4), 512-518.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/61.4.512

45. Segal, M., Rapin, I. Head circumference calculator. From https://simulconsult.com

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 20

APPENDIX A: UPDATED DESIGN SPECS

Specs highlighted in blue have been updated or added.

Need Specification Notes

Safe Non-flammable, non-toxic, hypoallergenic, no electrical

components adjacent to skin, does not apply pressure to
sensitive areas like the throat

Unobtrusive Does not cover more than 20% of face, does not inhibit Looks natural and does not cause stigmatization
head movement or affect head position because of appearance

Aesthetics Looks as little like a medical device as possible Looks natural and does not cause stigmatization
because of appearance

Upright Allows user to have eyeline < 30 degrees from parallel in May need to be adjusted for wheelchair style; goal
either direction is to allow eye contact with others

Comfortable Avoid excessive friction and points of >0.2 psi (1.4 kPa) of Do not cause rubbing or pressure that may create
differential pressure. Soft. an open sore or ulcer

Lightweight <0.2 kg of load on neck Don’t want the weight of the device to add to the
difficulty already faced by potential user in keeping
their head upright.

Clean Exterior is fully washable Avoid creating sores or smells

Expandable 45.1-57.5 cm circumference (based on 5th percentile female May need to make different versions for different
2-year-old and 95th percentile male 18-year-old)45 ages. Prototypes may not span this full range.

Adjustable Must be able to accommodate for a range of head angles,

/Adaptable sensory limitations, and ages. Goal is to be usable for
children at GMFCS levels 3 through 5.

Easy to put on Takes less than 2 minutes for a typical adult to put on and Depending on context, either PT, caretaker, or
turn on (assuming caretaker puts device on the user) user must be able to put the device on easily

Power source Rechargeable battery Want to avoid cords which could interfere with
wheelchair

Battery charge Standard wall outlet (120V, 60Hz)

method

Length of use >8 hours on a single charge Should be able to use multiple times without
charging

Durability Doesn’t break easily if jostled, bumped, or otherwise disturbed Clumsiness of user shouldn’t disable the device

Response time Device must respond quickly to the user’s head moving out of Slow response would make learning and
proper position improvement more difficult

Multiple forms of Device should provide feedback in multiple ways Multiple forms of feedback shown to improve
feedback outcomes

Data output Outputs the total amount of time used and the successful use Client wants to know how much patients are using
percentage the device and how much it impacts their behavior

Connectivity Wireless while in use, delivers data to a phone, computer, or Avoid cords on/around the wheelchair as much as
other device with a user interface possible

Cost Less than $200 in parts

 Senior Design Group 3, Progress Report – Page 21

APPENDIX B: UPDATED GANTT CHART

This Gantt chart shows the proposed schedule. Full-team tasks are shown in teal, Katelyn’s
tasks are shown in purple, Thom’s tasks are shown in green, and Emma’s tasks are shown in
red.

For this paper, Katelyn focused on feedback mechanisms, Emma focused on sensors, and
Thom focused on computation and transmission. We will continue with this division of labor for
building - Katelyn will focus on wirelessly controlling the desired feedback, Emma will focus on
getting good input from the sensor and sensor placement, and Thom will focus on making
necessary connections between devices and analyzing the IMU data to produce meaningful
information. Emma and Thom will likely be working closely together to obtain information from
the IMU, and Katelyn will assist as needed.