P19043: Essential Tremor Evaluation

Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation

Table of Contents

Team Vision for Final Demo and Handoff

Our team had pretty big plans for this phase. We were able to demonstrate a working prototype machine that was capable of acquiring both motion data and MyoMuscle EMG data. Our initial plan was to create a second device that would be more lightweight, but would also follow the same logic as our prototype device. We decided that we would leave the prototype iteration of our device functional while trying to improve on the design. Due to problems with shipping, we were not able to complete the second iteration of our design. We completed our paper, our poster, and were able to complete the lightning talk. We also adjusted our fully functional prototype device such that it was lighter and better suited to use throughout all of imagine by affixing components with glue or fasteners.

Human Test Results Summary

Raw Data
Essential Tremor Control
public/ET EMG

public/ET EMG

public/Control EMG

public/Control EMG

public/ET Motion

public/ET Motion

public/Control Motion

public/Control Motion

The figure shows a comparison of both motion and EMG data collected from an individual with ET and an individual without ET. The EMG data shows that there more electrical activity and higher voltage peaks (between 3 and 5 volts) in the ET subject compared to the electrical activity and voltage peaks (between 1 and 4 volts) in the non ET subject. The motion data also shows that there was more acceleration and larger peaks (between 1 and 6 rad/sec2) in the ET subject compared to the acceleration and peaks (between 0 and 1.5 rad/sec2) in the non ET subject.This can be due to more muscle contractions occurring in the subject with an ET compared to the subject without an ET. This can be further supported by the understanding that essential tremors are involuntary, rhythmic muscle contraction which causes a shaking motion in the body. Overall more testing needs to be done to truly validate the results collected since only 1 ET subject and 1 non ET subject were tested.

Test Plan

Our test method to determine how well this product subscribes to our engineering requirements is detailed in 'Device Test Rev2'. This document details our success criteria and our testing methods. We will determine the success of each test, and will respond by adjusting the success criteria panel of each TER.

Device Test Rev2

Calibration Verification

While each of our components was purchased with a calibration guarantee, we decided to conduct our own calibration checks. We first conducted calibration checks for our IMU devices. We found a drill, and using a slow motion camera, we determined that it operated in the ball park of 900 RPM. This corresponds to a frequency of 15 Hz. We proceeded to disturb a hollow tube on which we situated our IMUs. When we performed frequency analysis on our device utilizing recorded data, we determined a frequency of 13 Hz. This response seems well within reason. We were also able to verify that the magnitude of IMU data was correct by orienting the device in the cardinal directions allowing the device to feel acceleration due to gravity. When we did this, we would perform analysis on acceleration data using the Pythagorean theorem, and we were able to determine an acceleration of 9.81 for each data point. We then decided to utilize a Biomedical Lab in Institute Hall to collect reference EMG data for each of the motions in our human testing procedure. We then compared the data collected via this method to the data collected with our device. The data from our device correlated to spikes and lulls in locations consistent with the information determined from our reference.

Results of System Integration

We were able to create a device that operates in collecting real time muscle and motion data that is completely standalone from a computer. This means that we have eliminated a USB connection for data transmission and power. Each of our hardware systems have integrate with one another acceptably. Through the HC-05 Bluetooth chip, hardware connects to our software subsystem which is capable of displaying and recording our real time data. We have demonstrated full functionality of what we set out to create. There are definitely logistic improvements that need to be made to the device, but it functions as intended.

Device Testing Results

By using our device testing criteria we were able to determine the results stored in the 'Device Testing Results' document. We were able to pass each of our TER tests except that of our weight specification. We determined that the full device weight comes out to 0.82 lbs. while our specification was 0.75 lbs. This may mean that some of the tremor signal is being mitigated in our device based on NCBI research about tremor mitigation wristbands.

We were initially creating our second iteration device to fix this problem, but due to shipping delays this turned into an impractical hope. Luckily we still have a functional prototype as it stands.

Device Testing Results

Risk and Problem Tracking

Risk Management Final Phase

Issue Management Log Final Phase

Final Project Documentation

Electrical Hardware

Wiring Diagram MkIII

Schematic MkIV

Mechanical Hardware

Below are the files for the current device iterations (3D Prints). The files were created in Autodesk Inventor 2007.

Current 3D Print Iterations

Instructional Material

Hardware Manufacturing Instructions

Final BOM

Software Material




Functional Demo Materials

Finalized Gantt Chart




Final Phase Pre-read

Home | Planning & Execution | Imagine RIT

Problem Definition | Systems Design | Preliminary Detailed Design | Detailed Design

Build & Test Prep | Subsystem Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test | Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation