This site was created by Team 2 to help organize what we did in this project for those who will take it on. 

Links:

Midterm presentation  

Initial Direction

After meeting with the client, Austin Crane, we were made aware that this device is not intended for stroke patients, but for helping patients rehabilitate after their orthopedic surgery. This meeting occurred the during the THIRD week, so we spent the first two weeks unaware of the actual purpose and focused on the stroke aspect instead (refer to Week 1 & 2). Fortunately, this did not affect the project too much, and mostly changed the UI and project direction instead. 

Research

Target Market (users)

Patients who require rehabilitation after an orthopedic surgery, with a focus on adult foot sizes and ease of use for the physician. 

User Profile

A patient who would reside at strong memorial hospital. This is mainly because our device is designed around the physical therapy sessions at strong memorial hospital, and the system they have in place for it. The user would also be recovering from orthopedic surgery and would require a physical therapy session after their traumatic injury. During these sessions, they will use crutches or a walker. 

The physical therapist would also be a user for the app-based design.

Technology Studies (experts)

We reached out to Dan Phillips to discuss our difficulties with electrical components and made a document of all the questions we had for him. He also came in from time to time to inspect the components and see what he could do. 

Steven would also research the resources Dan gave us on alternatives to sensors to help with ideation.

For the first 5 weeks, we had no electrical engineer on our team and were unable to understand our technological limitations, and had a lack of confidence regarding the creation of a prototype. After the midterm presentation, we finally had Dana (EE) join us and were able to feel more confident since right after joining she immediately understood what she had to do to make things work.  

Business 

As of right now, there are not many adjustable affordable foot sensors created for medical purposes that we could find. If this design ends up working, it could really help many physical therapists around the world–not just Austin.  

Refined Problem Statement

To design a device that can be attached to a patient’s foot (or both feet) to sense, display, and record pressure/force on foot during a physical therapy session.

Benchmarking

There were already many foot sensors on the market, but none that really fit what we wanted, or worked with our design requirements. We did not find one that included any sort of visual, auditory, or haptic feedback either.  

Here are two that we did somewhat like though, with both its benefits and drawbacks.

1. TekScan

Benefits:

• Adjustable
• Multiple high-resolution, built-in sensors
• Real-time data sent to clinician
• Data can be analyzed using research software
• Is a footpad, so can be placed into shoe
• Displays center of force

Drawbacks:

• EXPENSIVE ($6995)
• Not reusable (you CUT it to size yourself)
• Stores data using a wire-based device, which some patients may not like

2. Wearable shoe-based device for stroke patients

Benefits:

• Cheap
• Accelerometer included
• Real-time data
• Maps out posture vs. time with accuracy
• Discrete design
• Makes remote monitoring possible, as accelerometer can indicate your current posture

Drawbacks:

• One size only, as it is a shoe
• Only 5 pressure sensors

Ideation

Midterm Presentation

Prototyping 

Process

Testing

Feedback

Timeline of what we did

Week 1

• Got to know each other
• Discussed problem statement
• Researched stroke 
  • Isolated stroke symptoms related to our problem statement t
• Benchmarking of foot sensors
• Discussed Gantt Chart (project schedule) as a group

Week 2

• Benchmarking of foot sensors and stroke treatment devices, while focusing on technology, how it would help stroke patients, & user comfort 
• Prepared questionnaires for stroke patients and interviews for PTs to help adjust problem statement
• Found contacts to reach out to, such as the head of Al Sigl and the Stroke Support Group
• Finalized a Gantt Chart for the first 3 weeks

Week 3

• New member (Zoii) joins us
• Have a meeting with Austin Crane for the first time and our entire direction changes because of the revised problem statement

Week 4

• Started benchmarking connecting component of the sensors to the footpad

Week 5

• MIDTERM PRESENTATION

Week 6

• Had an electrical engineer (Dana) that Dan Phillips brought help us out, which really moved our project forward as Dana got 6 sensors working along with the beeping mechanism
• Started finalizing prototype choices using 

Week 7

• Had a meeting with Austin to receive approval of our design direction 

Challenges

Where we left off...

Suggestions

• Review the presentations we had created in the Google Drive for each week to see what we did since it sums it up best (if you do not have this, Dan Harel might be gatekeeping it. If that is the case, ask him to show you our midterm presentation or show you guys the presentation for the coinciding week)
• Meet with Austin Crane before your ideation process to better understand the issue at hand
• Meet with Austin Crane after your ideation process to receive feedback and approval of design direction
• If you do not have an electrical engineer (not this again!), ask Dan Phillips to refer you to one
• Value the feedback given to you guys by the coaches, but not blindly