2018
DOI: 10.7567/jjap.57.07lc11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Verification of contact force estimation method for the bone-conducted sound transducer with human subjects

Abstract: In this study, we evaluated a method of estimating the contact force of a bone-conducted sound transducer using human subjects. The method was previously proposed and evaluated only with a human model. First, the relationship between the contact force and the electrical impedance was validated for 12 human subjects from 10 Hz to 60 kHz. The results showed that the electrical impedance shows four peaks and that the peaks change with contact force for all subjects in the same manner. A method of estimating the c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that this result was achieved with calibration at only 0.3 N and 0.5 N. With such a small amount of data, the previous method using a neural network 37) is not applicable, as thousands of parameters are required before learning converges. The 90th percentile of the estimation error in the previous method was 0.4 N with 770 sets of calibration data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Note that this result was achieved with calibration at only 0.3 N and 0.5 N. With such a small amount of data, the previous method using a neural network 37) is not applicable, as thousands of parameters are required before learning converges. The 90th percentile of the estimation error in the previous method was 0.4 N with 770 sets of calibration data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The 90th percentile of the estimation error was 0.4 N. This estimation error is reasonably low compared to the 90th percentile error of 0.4 N by the previously proposed method using a neural network. 37) The variation in the error was attributable to the variation of c h shown in Fig. 5.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 3 more Smart Citations