Fig. 2. Mechanics, optimization, and control of motion artifacts with an SWS.
(A) Photo comparing an SWS with a commercial device (TLO digital stethoscope) on the skin model. (B) Comparison of skin contact quality between the commercial rigid stethoscope (left) showing delamination from the skin due to the 45° curvature and the SWS showing intimate contact. (C) Difference of pressure applied on the microphone island using various biocompatible adhesives, including silbione, 3M 2476P, 3M Tegaderm, and micropore. (D) Time-series graph versus normalized amplitude for the S1 peak from the heart sounds using different adhesives. (E) Calculated SNR from S1 peaks from (D); there are four trials. (F) Time-series graph of the SWS versus the commercial device (TLO) when both are mounted on the chest; this subject conducts different activities, including standing and walking while recording the sounds. (G) Zoomed-in graphs for part of the noise peaks caused by walking; the SWS with skin-conformable contact (top graph) clearly shows S1 and S2 peaks, while the commercial one (bottom graph) shows step-noise amplified compared to the heart sounds.