6. Alternatives Analysis
| Things to Consider | Strength | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 3 | 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Ease of Manufacturing | 2 | 9 | 7 | 5 |
| Reliability | 4 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
| Ease of Use | 5 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| Works across different kinds of patients | 5 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
| 100 | 105 | 152 |
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Pressure Sensor values are easy to read and there will be no delay or error between heel rise and electrical stimulation | The settings can only be changed when the Arduino is plugged into the user’s computer making it impossible to do on-the-fly adjustments |
| The user will have some control of when the stimulation turns on based on the pressure they place on their heel | The stimulation is based entirely on the pressure sensor – thus, it can’t be turned on at any other point in the walking cycle as needed. This creates a limitation as to what muscle group this system can apply to. The stimulation cannot be turned on when the leg is simply in the air or just on the ground. |
| Easier implementation | Wear and tear of the pressure sensor would mean constant replacement |
In terms of the Selection Matrix, below are the reasons for the values provided in the matrix.
- Cost: In term of cost, this would be the cheapest to manufacture since it requires the least amount of resources. The only things required would be a micro-controller and a pressure sensor for the entire product to be complete. Thus, this received a 10/10.
- Ease of Manufacturing: Since this is such a simple device to create in terms of external components (only pressure sensor), this would also be the easiest to manufacture in comparison to all of the other designs. Thus, this received a 9/10.
- Reliability: While this is so simple, it would not be the most reliable amongst all the patients who use it. Since the stimulation is based entirely on the pressure sensor as stated in the “con” column above, it’s use would be entirely limited to the pressure sensor making it unreliable for patients who are unable to trigger the sensor at some point in the walking cycle. Furthermore, with the wear and tear of the pressure sensor, it may start to not work as desired over a period of time. Thus, this received a 3/10.
- Ease of use: As once again stated in the “con” section, the settings can only be changed when the micro-controller is plugged in to the user’s computer. This would make it very difficult for the user to edit settings regularly. Thus, this received a 4/10.
- Works across different kinds of patients: This specific design completely limits the walking pattern to based on when the pressure sensor has some changes. Thus, the muscle cannot be stimulated mid-air. Thus, this received a 4/10.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Pressure Sensor values are easy to read and there will be no delay or error between heel rise and electrical stimulation | The stimulation is based entirely on the pressure sensor – thus, it can’t be turned on at any other point in the walking cycle as needed. This creates a limitation as to what muscle group this system can apply to. The stimulation cannot be turned on when the leg is simply in the air or just on the ground. |
| The user will have some control of when the stimulation turns on based on the pressure they place on their heel | Wear and tear of the pressure sensor would mean constant replacement |
| Easier implementation | |
| Bluetooth will allow the user to edit settings on the fly without having the micro-controller plugged in to do so |
In terms of the Selection Matrix, below are the reasons for the values provided in the matrix.
- Cost: In term of cost, the only additional cost between the first design and the second design is the Bluetooth. Thus, this receive a score of 8/10.
- Ease of Manufacturing: This would be a slightly more difficult device to manufacture since it also includes a Bluetooth component. This requires integration of the Bluetooth from the Arduino and from the Computer thus requiring a GUI. Thus, this received a 7/10.
- Reliability: While this is so simple, it would not be the most reliable amongst all the patients who use it. Since the stimulation is based entirely on the pressure sensor as stated in the “con” column above, it’s use would be entirely limited to the pressure sensor making it unreliable for patients who are unable to trigger the sensor at some point in the walking cycle. Furthermore, with the wear and tear of the pressure sensor, it may start to not work as desired over a period of time. Thus, this received a 3/10.
- Ease of use: Since the device is connected via Bluetooth to the computer, changing the settings on-the-go would become much easier. The device would not need to be connected to the computer directly, but instead, can easily be accessed through the GUI. Furthermore, with more development, this could be connected to the phone. Thus, this received a 7/10.
- Works across different kinds of patients: This specific design completely limits the walking pattern to based on when the pressure sensor has some changes. Thus, the muscle cannot be stimulated mid-air. Thus, this received a 4/10.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| The user will have full control of when the stimulation will turn on exactly based on where their leg is in space | Gyroscope/accelerometer values need to be very exact |
| It can be used for any muscle group and the stimulation can be turned regardless of whether the heel is on the floor or the in the air | |
| Bluetooth will allow the user to edit settings on the fly without having the micro-controller plugged in to do so |
In terms of the Selection Matrix, below are the reasons for the values provided in the matrix.
- Cost: In term of cost, this would be the most expensive design requiring a highly accurate gyroscope and accelerometer. This would also include a Bluetooth component. Thus, this receive a 5/10.
- Ease of Manufacturing: This would be a lot more difficult device to manufacture since it also includes a gyroscope/accelerometer as well as the bluetooth. This requires integration of the Bluetooth and gyroscope/accelerometer to the Arduino and the Bluetooth to the Computer thus requiring a GUI. Thus, this received a 5/10.
- Reliability: Since this design no longer relies on a pressure sensor, the user has full control of when the stimulation will turn on. This means that the gyroscope/accelerometer values are controlled by the user and can reliably turn on the stimulation at any time. Thus, this receives a score of 8/10.
- Ease of use: Since the device is connected via Bluetooth to the computer, changing the settings on-the-go would become much easier. The device would not need to be connected to the computer directly, but instead, can easily be accessed through the GUI. Furthermore, with more development, this could be connected to the phone. Since the pressure sensor has completely been removed, it would be so much easier for the user to have full control. Thus, this received a 10/10.
- Works across different kinds of patients: As mentioned previously, this would work across almost every single patient. The gyroscope/accelerometer measures the location in space and can thus stimulate based on these values. Thus, this received a 9/10.
