2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of mechanical characteristics of different topologies of the cantilever beam to mimic the function of the cochlea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While relatively easy to implement, using a beam as a method of acoustic capture is extremely inefficient for lower frequencies due to diffraction around the relatively narrow beam width. The pressure difference between the front and back sides of the cantilever is small, resulting in maximum displacements at resonance in the order of tens of nanometres [57]. The resultant electrical transduction and signal-to-noise level are also prohibitively small since the cantilevers may not rely on capacitive sensing through an electrical backplate, as in a traditional microphone, due to the impact of thin film damping on both the mechanical sensitivity of the device and the resonance frequency [58,59].…”
Section: Bio-inspired Frequency Discriminating Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While relatively easy to implement, using a beam as a method of acoustic capture is extremely inefficient for lower frequencies due to diffraction around the relatively narrow beam width. The pressure difference between the front and back sides of the cantilever is small, resulting in maximum displacements at resonance in the order of tens of nanometres [57]. The resultant electrical transduction and signal-to-noise level are also prohibitively small since the cantilevers may not rely on capacitive sensing through an electrical backplate, as in a traditional microphone, due to the impact of thin film damping on both the mechanical sensitivity of the device and the resonance frequency [58,59].…”
Section: Bio-inspired Frequency Discriminating Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%