Smart Sensor Systems for Wearable Electronic Devices

An, Byeong Wan; Shin, Jung Hwal; Kim, So-Yun; Kim, Joohee; Ji, Sangyoon; Park, Jihun; Lee, Youngjin; Jang, Jiuk; Park, Young‐Geun; Cho, Eunjin; Jo, Subin; Park, Jang Ung

doi:10.3390/polym9080303

Cited by 207 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 192 publications

(308 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Piezoresistive pressure sensors based on composite materials consisting of elastic matrixes and conductive fillers have been comprehensively investigated and adopted in commercial applications due to their good performance and compatibility with scalable printing technology . However, the sensors based on bulk resistance changes generally exhibited poor sensitivity in low pressure ranges, which limited their applications in E‐skin or wearable devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Pressure Sensors with Wide Linearity Range and High Sensitivity Based on Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing

Zhang

et al. 2019

Adv Materials Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

applications in electronic skin (E-skin), human-machine interfaces, and healthcare monitoring. [1][2][3][4] Among the various types of sensors employing piezoresistive, [5][6][7] capacitive, [8][9][10] piezoelectric, [11][12][13] and triboelectric [14][15][16] sensing mechanisms, the piezoresistive mechanisms have been intensively investigated due to their high sensitivity, simple structures, easy fabrication, and convenient data processing, resulting in significantly promising commercialization prospects. [17][18][19] To achieve success in practical applications, excellent performances in the pressure range related to human activity and scalable, low-cost, and reproducible manufacturing processes are decidedly required. [20][21][22][23] Piezoresistive pressure sensors based on composite materials consisting of elastic matrixes and conductive fillers have been comprehensively investigated and adopted in commercial applications due to their good performance and compatibility with scalable printing technology. [3,21,24] However, the sensors based on bulk resistance changes generally exhibited poor sensitivity in low pressure ranges, which limited their applications in E-skin or wearable devices. To break the bottleneck, flexible pressure sensors composed of surface microstructures and conductive layers were proposed, in which the signals were typically generated from the variation of the contact resistance. [25,26] The transformed working mechanism greatly promoted the sensitivity up to 10-100 kPa −1 (especially in the low pressure range) and decreased the limit of detection (LOD) to 1 Pa or less. [26][27][28] Nonetheless, for plenty of microstructure-based sensors, the response ranges with high sensitivity were limited to several kPa since the contact areas of the microstructures were easily saturated under small pressure. First, the narrow range would limit their applications in the medium-pressure range [29,30] (10-100 kPa), which is closely related to daily human activity. Second, the background stress that is generated from nontest objects can easily disable a sensor with a narrow sensing range. [31,32] In addition to the sensing range, a linear relationship between the pressure and the electrical signals was typically desired to facilitate data processing. [21,33] Considering that the sensitivity was usually different in the whole range, the available range would be further narrowed down, which set To achieve practical applications of flexible pressure sensors, good performance and scalable manufacturing processes are both desired. Here, flexible pressure sensors with excellent performance are fabricated via selective laser sintering (SLS). Having benefitted from the irregular microstructures generated in the powder sintering process, the sensors exhibit high sensitivity of 55 kPa −1 in a wide linearity range of 100 kPa, and they maintain decent sensitivity (>10 kPa −1 ) over a high-pressure range (100-400 kPa), which is among the best results for flexible pressure sensors. The working mechanism of the sensor...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Pressure Sensors with Wide Linearity Range and High Sensitivity Based on Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing

Zhang

et al. 2019

Adv Materials Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the next hot spot in the PED industry, wearable electronic devices have been attracting more and more attention in both the academic research institutions and industry since Google launched Google Glasses in 2012. [43][44][45][46] Wearable electronic devices refer to clothing and accessories incorporating the body's sensing, communication, and digital entertainment functions. Typical examples include smart watches, smart glasses, smart clothing, heart rate monitors, fitness trackers, and so on ( Figure 10).…”

Section: Wearable Electronic Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of rechargeable batteries for portable electronic devices

Liang

Zhao

Yuan

et al. 2019

InfoMat

803

396

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Portable electronic devices (PEDs) are promising information‐exchange platforms for real‐time responses. Their performance is becoming more and more sensitive to energy consumption. Rechargeable batteries are the primary energy source of PEDs and hold the key to guarantee their desired performance stability. With the remarkable progress in battery technologies, multifunctional PEDs have constantly been emerging to meet the requests of our daily life conveniently. The ongoing surge in demand for high‐performance PEDs inspires the relentless pursuit of even more powerful rechargeable battery systems in turn. In this review, we present how battery technologies contribute to the fast rise of PEDs in the last decades. First, a comprehensive overview of historical advances in PEDs is outlined. Next, four types of representative rechargeable batteries and their impacts on the practical development of PEDs are described comprehensively. The development trends toward a new generation of batteries and the future research focuses are also presented.

show abstract

“…Considering revoking biometrics is impossible (unless revocable technology is fused with the system), a successful compromise can impact the system performance and operations adversely (3) DoS and other attacks that target the availability of data could drain the battery of WBS or trigger excessive usage of critical resources like network bandwidth, causing WBS to undergo preemptive shutdown that, in certain use-cases, could not only be disruptive to system operation but also be fatal to the owner (4) It is known that WBS are sensitive to external noises, considering their energy and spectral efficiencies depend on them. However, jamming attacks distort the legitimate signals by adding noise to impact WBS performance • Many recent works have proposed novel WBS materials: stretchable silicon-based elastomers like polydimethylsiloxane or Ecoflex for substrates and metal-based conductors for electrodes [29]. They exhibit properties like biocompatibility, stretchability, conductivity, malleability, ability to withstand strain and stress, and have a low failure rate…”

Section: :25mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey on Modality Characteristics, Performance Evaluation Metrics, and Security for Traditional and Wearable Biometric Systems

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biometric research is directed increasingly towards Wearable Biometric Systems (WBS) for user authentication and identification. However, prior to engaging in WBS research, how their operational dynamics and design considerations differ from those of Traditional Biometric Systems (TBS) must be understood. While the current literature is cognizant of those differences, there is no effective work that summarizes the factors where TBS and WBS differ, namely, their modality characteristics, performance, security and privacy. To bridge the gap, this paper accordingly reviews and compares the key characteristics of modalities, contrasts the metrics used to evaluate system performance, and highlights the divergence in critical vulnerabilities, attacks and defenses for TBS and WBS. It further discusses how these factors affect the design considerations for WBS, the open challenges and future directions of research in these areas. In doing so, the paper provides a big-picture overview of the important avenues of challenges and potential solutions that researchers entering the field should be aware of. Hence, this survey aims to be a starting point for researchers in comprehending the fundamental differences between TBS and WBS before understanding the core challenges associated with WBS and its design. A. Sundararajan et al. • TBS consider each modality of the user as a separate entity while WBS consider the entire user (along with all of their individual modalities) as one [152] • TBS can be optionally connected to the Internet, while WBS are inherently online, exploiting the principles of Internet of Everything (IoE) [178] • The authentication and identification processes for TBS are static and user-initiated while for WBS are dynamic and autonomous

show abstract

Smart Sensor Systems for Wearable Electronic Devices

Cited by 207 publications

References 192 publications

Flexible Pressure Sensors with Wide Linearity Range and High Sensitivity Based on Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing

Flexible Pressure Sensors with Wide Linearity Range and High Sensitivity Based on Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing

A review of rechargeable batteries for portable electronic devices

A Survey on Modality Characteristics, Performance Evaluation Metrics, and Security for Traditional and Wearable Biometric Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About