Brimacombe Jill M, Wilson David R, Hodgson Antony J, Ho Karen C T, Anglin Carolyn
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, 6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC, V6R 2L7, Canada.
J Biomech Eng. 2009 Mar;131(3):034503. doi: 10.1115/1.3005165.
Tekscan pressure sensors are used in biomechanics research to measure joint contact loads. While the overall accuracy of these sensors has been reported previously, the effects of different calibration algorithms on sensor accuracy have not been compared. The objectives of this validation study were to determine the most appropriate calibration method supplied in the Tekscan program software and to compare its accuracy to the accuracy obtained with two user-defined calibration protocols. We evaluated the calibration accuracies for test loads within the low range, high range, and full range of the sensor. Our experimental setup used materials representing those found in standard prosthetic joints, i.e., metal against plastic. The Tekscan power calibration was the most accurate of the algorithms provided with the system software, with an overall rms error of 2.7% of the tested sensor range, whereas the linear calibrations resulted in an overall rms error of up to 24% of the tested range. The user-defined ten-point cubic calibration was almost five times more accurate, on average, than the power calibration over the full range, with an overall rms error of 0.6% of the tested range. The user-defined three-point quadratic calibration was almost twice as accurate as the Tekscan power calibration, but was sensitive to the calibration loads used. We recommend that investigators design their own calibration curves not only to improve accuracy but also to understand the range(s) of highest error and to choose the optimal points within the expected sensing range for calibration. Since output and sensor nonlinearity depend on the experimental protocol (sensor type, interface shape and materials, sensor range in use, loading method, etc.), sensor behavior should be investigated for each different application.
Tekscan压力传感器用于生物力学研究,以测量关节接触负荷。虽然这些传感器的整体精度此前已有报道,但不同校准算法对传感器精度的影响尚未进行比较。本验证研究的目的是确定Tekscan程序软件中提供的最合适校准方法,并将其精度与两种用户定义的校准协议所获得的精度进行比较。我们评估了传感器低量程、高量程和全量程内测试负荷的校准精度。我们的实验装置使用了代表标准假肢关节中材料的材料,即金属对塑料。Tekscan功率校准是系统软件提供的算法中最准确的,其总均方根误差为测试传感器量程的2.7%,而线性校准导致的总均方根误差高达测试量程的24%。用户定义的十点三次校准在全量程上平均比功率校准精确近五倍,总均方根误差为测试量程的0.6%。用户定义的三点二次校准几乎比Tekscan功率校准精确两倍,但对所用的校准负荷敏感。我们建议研究人员设计自己的校准曲线,不仅是为了提高精度,也是为了了解最高误差范围,并在预期的传感范围内选择最佳的校准点。由于输出和传感器非线性取决于实验方案(传感器类型、界面形状和材料、使用的传感器量程、加载方法等),因此应针对每个不同的应用研究传感器的行为。