Table 3.
Comparison of pressure sensing systems.
| Type Name/ Company |
Sensor Specification | System Specification | Clinic Test | Year/ Ref. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate Type | Sensor Pitch (cm) | Total Sensor no. | Digitized Level | Accuracy (%) | Patient no. | ||
|
CONFORMat@/
NITTA corp. |
Flexible | 2.17 | 32 × 32 | N/A | ±10% | 0 | 2011/[35] |
| 5315/Tekscan Inc. | Flexible | 1 | 42 × 48 | 256 | ±10% | 0 | 2015/[12] |
|
PX100/
XSENSOR Tech. |
Flexible | 1.27 | 64 × 160 | N/A | ±10% | 0 | 2015/[11] |
|
Mark III/
Talley Group Ltd. |
N/A | 3 | 12 × 8 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 2017/[36] |
|
ePad-ExtraS50
/eBio Tech. |
Textile | 3.2 | 14 × 18 | 1024 | ±8% [±0.2%] * |
47 | This work |
* Accuracy of system without pressure loading can be ±0.2% by the help of Kalman filter.