3.8 Proceedings Paper

Titanium Based Dry Electrodes for Biostimulation and Data Acquisition

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-20859-1_12

关键词

Dry electrodes; Signal acquisition; Biostimulation; sEMG; Thin film

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wet electrodes, which rely on conductive electrolyte gel, have issues such as long setup time, disposability or time-consuming cleaning, skin irritation, and signal quality deterioration. To overcome these drawbacks, 3D printed bases with polymers and functionalized with thin films of titanium and titanium-nitride, doped with copper, were developed. The results show that these dry electrodes have similar performance to wet AgCl/Ag electrodes for data acquisition, but improvements are needed for muscle stimulation and the durability and adhesion of the thin films.
Wet electrodes rely on conductive electrolyte gel for proper performance, usually presenting high setup time and being disposable or requiring time-consuming cleaning methods. Skin irritation and signal quality deterioration are some of the problems that may occur with these electrodes. Therefore, to overcome these drawbacks, 3D printed bases using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) with Polylactic acid (PLA), Polyurethane (PU) and Cellulose filaments were functionalized with titanium (Ti) and titanium-nitride (TiN) thin films and dopped with copper (Cu). The electrodes, implemented using different diameters, were used to record electromyography (EMG) signals proceeded by biostimulation sessions to access their electrical and mechanical characteristics and compare them to that of commercial AgCl/Ag electrodes. The results show that TiN and TiNCu0.45 dry electrodes present results similar to wet AgCl/Ag electrodes for data acquisition. To be comparable to usual carbon electrodes for muscle stimulation, they need some conductivity improvements to lower the necessary voltage. Besides, the endurance of the thin films must be enhanced as well as the adhesion to the polymer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据