Epidermal piezoresistive structure with deep learning-assisted data translation
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Continued research on the epidermal electronic sensor aims to develop sophisticated platforms that reproduce key multimodal responses in human skin, with the ability to sense various external stimuli, such as pressure, shear, torsion, and touch. The development of such applications utilizes algorithmic interpretations to analyze the complex stimulus shape, magnitude, and various moduli of the epidermis, requiring multiple complex equations for the attached sensor. In this experiment, we integrate silicon piezoresistors with a customized deep learning data process to facilitate in the precise evaluation and assessment of various stimuli without the need for such complexities. With the ability to surpass conventional vanilla deep regression models, the customized regression and classification model is capable of predicting the magnitude of the external force, epidermal hardness and object shape with an average mean absolute percentage error and accuracy of <15 and 96.9%, respectively. The technical ability of the deep learning-aided sensor and the consequent accurate data process provide important foundations for the future sensory electronic system.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials · Tactile and Sensory Interactions · Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Seal, R. P. et al. Injury-induced mechanical hypersensitivity requires C-low threshold mechanoreceptors. Nature 462, 651–655 (2009).10.1038/nature08505 ↗
2. Treede, R. D. Neurogenic hyperalgesia: Illuminating its mechanisms with an infrared laser. J. Physiol. 594, 6441–6442 (2016).10.1113/JP273072 ↗
3. Yang, Y. S. et al. Increased expression of three types of transient receptor potential channels (TRPA1, TRPV4, and TRPV3) in burn scars with post-burn pruritus. Acta Derm. Venereol. 95, 20–24 (2015).10.2340/00015555-1858 ↗
4. Hua, Q. et al. Skin-inspired highly stretchable and conformable matrix networks for multifunctional sensing. Nat. Commun. 9, 244 (2018).10.1038/s41467-017-02685-9 ↗
5. You, I. et al. Artificial multimodal receptors based on ion relaxation dynamics. Science 370, 961–965 (2020).10.1126/science.aba5132 ↗
6. Jung, Y. H., Kim, J. H. & Rogers, J. A. Skin‐integrated vibrohaptic interfaces for virtual and augmented reality. Adv. Funct. Mater. 31, 2008805 (2021).10.1002/adfm.202008805 ↗
7. Yu, X. et al. Skin-integrated wireless haptic interfaces for virtual and augmented reality. Nature 575, 473–479 (2019).10.1038/s41586-019-1687-0 ↗
8. Kang, D. et al. Ultrasensitive mechanical crack-based sensor inspired by the spider sensory system. Nature 516, 222–226 (2014).10.1038/nature14002 ↗
9. Park, B. et al. Dramatically enhanced mechanosensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio of nanoscale crack-based sensors: Effect of crack depth. Adv. Mater. 28, 8130–8137 (2016).10.1002/adma.201602425 ↗
10. Pang, C. et al. A flexible and highly sensitive strain-gauge sensor using reversible interlocking of nanofibres. Nat. Mater. 11, 795–801 (2012).10.1038/nmat3380 ↗
11. Choi, D. et al. A highly sensitive tactile sensor using a pyramid-plug structure for detecting pressure, shear force, and torsion. Adv. Mater. Technol. 4, 1800284 (2019).10.1002/admt.201800284 ↗
12. Won, S. M. et al. Multimodal sensing with a three-dimensional piezoresistive structure. ACS Nano 13, 10972–10979 (2019).10.1021/acsnano.9b02030 ↗
13. Hatzipantelis, E. & Penman, J. The use of hidden Markov models for condition monitoring electrical machines. In Proc. 1993 Sixth International Conference on Electrical Machines and Drives (Conf. Publ. No. 376), 91–96 (IET, 1993).
14. Saini, I., Singh, D. & Khosla, A. QRS detection using K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm (KNN) and evaluation on standard ECG databases. J. Adv. Res. 4, 331–344 (2013).10.1016/j.jare.2012.05.007 ↗
15. He, R. et al. Automatic detection of atrial fibrillation based on continuous wavelet transform and 2D convolutional neural networks. Front. Physiol. 9, 1206 (2018).10.3389/fphys.2018.01206 ↗
16. Zhao, Y., Cheng, J., Zhan, P. & Peng, X. ECG classification using deep CNN improved by wavelet transform. Comput. Mater. Contin. 64, 1615–1628 (2020).
17. Tian, C. et al. Deep learning on image denoising: An overview. Neural Netw. 131, 251–275 (2020).10.1016/j.neunet.2020.07.025 ↗
18. Moin, A. et al. A wearable biosensing system with in-sensor adaptive machine learning for hand gesture recognition. Nat. Electron. 4, 54–63 (2020).10.1038/s41928-020-00510-8 ↗
19. Han, S. et al. Battery-free, wireless sensors for full-body pressure and temperature mapping. Sci. Transl. Med. 10, eaan4950 (2018).10.1126/scitranslmed.aan4950 ↗
20. Kim, D. H. et al. Electronic sensor and actuator webs for large-area complex geometry cardiac mapping and therapy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 19910–19915 (2012).10.1073/pnas.1205923109 ↗
21. Won, S. M. et al. Piezoresistive strain sensors and multiplexed arrays using assemblies of single-crystalline silicon nanoribbons on plastic substrates. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 58, 4074–4078 (2011).10.1109/TED.2011.2164923 ↗
22. Nguyen, T. et al. Advances in ultrasensitive piezoresistive sensors: From conventional to flexible and stretchable applications. Mater. Horiz. 8, 2123–2150 (2021).10.1039/D1MH00538C ↗
23. Kleimann, P., Semmache, B., Berre, M. L. & Barbier, D. Stress-dependent hole effective masses and piezoresistive properties of p-type monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon. Phys. Rev. B 57, 8966–8971 (1998).10.1103/PhysRevB.57.8966 ↗
24. Lu, N., Lu, C., Yang, S. & Rogers, J. A. Highly sensitive skin-mountable strain gauges based entirely on elastomers. Adv. Funct. Mater. 22, 4044–4050 (2012).10.1002/adfm.201200498 ↗
25. Shin, J. et al. Bioresorbable pressure sensors protected with thermally grown silicon dioxide for the monitoring of chronic diseases and healing processes. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 37–46 (2019).10.1038/s41551-018-0300-4 ↗
26. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proc. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778 (IEEE, 2016)10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 ↗
27. Zagoruyko, S. & Komodakis, N. Wide residual networks. In Proc. British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 87.1–87.12 (BMVA Press, 2016).10.5244/C.30.87 ↗
28. Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L. & Weinberger, K. Q. Densely Connected Convolutional Networks. In Proc. 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2261–2269 (IEEE, 2017).10.1109/CVPR.2017.243 ↗
29. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 25, 1097–1105 (2012).
30. Tan, M. & Le, Q. V. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for confolutional neural networks. International Conference on Machine Learning 6105–6114 (2019).
31. Russakovsky, O. et al. ImageNet large scale visual recognition challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 115, 211–252 (2015).10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y ↗
32. Krizhevsky, A. & Hinton, G. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/kriz/learning-features-2009-TR.pdf. (2009).
33. Berg, T. et al. Birdsnap: large-scale fine-grained visual categorization of birds. In Proc. 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019–2026 (IEEE, 2014).10.1109/CVPR.2014.259 ↗
34. Nilsback, M.-E. & Zisserman, A. Automated flower classification over a large number of classes. 2008 Sixth Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics & Image Processing, 722–729, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVGIP.2008.47 (2008).10.1109/ICVGIP.2008.47 ↗
35. Parkhi, O. M., Vedaldi, A., Zisserman, A. & Jawahar, C. V. Cats and dogs. 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3498–3505, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2012.6248092 (2012).10.1109/CVPR.2012.6248092 ↗
36. Bossard, L., Guillaumin, M. & Van Gool., L. Food-101– mining discriminative components with random forests. European Conference on Computer Vision. 446–461 (Springer, Cham, 2014).10.1007/978-3-319-10599-4_29 ↗
37. Zoph, B., Vasudevan, V., Shlens, J. & Le, Q. V. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8697–8710, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907 (2018).10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907 ↗
38. Szegedy, C., Ioffe, S., Vanhoucke, V. & Alemi., A. Inception-v4, inception-ResNet and the impact of residual connections on learning. In Proc. 31st AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 4278–4284, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907. (AAAI Press, 2017).10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907 ↗
39. Zhuang, F. et al. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proc. IEEE 109, 43–76 (2021).10.1109/JPROC.2020.3004555 ↗
40. Rodriguez, J. D., Perez, A. & Lozano, J. A. Sensitivity analysis of k-fold cross validation in prediction error estimation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intel. 32, 569–575 (2010).10.1109/TPAMI.2009.187 ↗
41. Szegedy, C. et al. A. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proc. In Proc. of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 1–9 (IEEE, 2015).10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298594 ↗
42. Cubuk, E. D., Zoph, B., Shlens, J. & Le, Q. V. Randaugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search space. In Proc. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 3008–3017 (IEEE, 2020).10.1109/CVPRW50498.2020.00359 ↗
43. Ramachandran, P., Zoph, B. & Le, Q. V. Swish: A self-gated activation function. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05941v1 (2017).