Spider-inspired tunable mechanosensor for biomedical applications
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The recent advances of wearable sensors are remarkable but there are still limitations that they need to be refabricated to tune the sensor for target signal. However, biological sensory systems have the inherent potential to adjust their sensitivity according to the external environment, allowing for a broad and enhanced detection. Here, we developed a Tunable, Ultrasensitive, Nature-inspired, Epidermal Sensor (TUNES) that the strain sensitivity was dramatically increased (GF ~30k) and the pressure sensitivity could be tuned (10–254 kPa−1) by preset membrane tension. The sensor adjusts the sensitivity to the pressure regime by preset tension, so it can measure a wide range (0.05 Pa–25 kPa) with the best performance: from very small signals such as minute pulse to relatively large signals such as muscle contraction and respiration. We verified its capabilities as a wearable health monitoring system by clinical trial comparing with pressure wire which is considered the current gold standard of blood pressure (r = 0.96) and home health care system by binary classification of Old’s/Young’s pulse waves via machine learning (accuracy 95%).
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials · Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring · Tactile and Sensory Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. Finck, A. The lyriform organ of the orb‐weaving spider A raneoussericatus: Vibration sensitivity is altered by bending the leg. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70, 231–233 (1981).10.1121/1.386678 ↗
2. Young, S. L. et al. Micromechanical properties of strain-sensitive lyriform organs of a wandering spider (Cupiennius salei). Acta Biomater. 41, 40–51 (2016).10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.009 ↗
3. Barth, F. G. Der sensorische Apparat der Spaltsinnesorgane (Cupiennius salei Keys., Araneae). Z. f.ür. Zellforsch. und mikroskopische Anat. 112, 212–246 (1971).10.1007/BF00331842 ↗
4. Barth, F. G. & Bohnenberger, J. Lyriform slit sense organ: thresholds and stimulus amplitude ranges in a multi-unit mechanoreceptor. J. Comp. Physiol. 125, 37–43 (1978).10.1007/BF00656829 ↗
5. Speck, J. & Barth, F. G. Vibration sensitivity of pretarsal slit sensilla in the spider leg. J. Comp. Physiol. 148, 187–194 (1982).10.1007/BF00619125 ↗
6. Yamada, T. et al. A stretchable carbon nanotube strain sensor for human-motion detection. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 296–301 (2011).10.1038/nnano.2011.36 ↗
7. Kang, D. et al. Ultrasensitive mechanical crack-based sensor inspired by the spider sensory system. Nature 516, 222–226 (2014).10.1038/nature14002 ↗
8. Schwartz, G. et al. Flexible polymer transistors with high pressure sensitivity for application in electronic skin and health monitoring. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–8 (2013).10.1038/ncomms2832 ↗
9. Mannsfeld, S. C. et al. Highly sensitive flexible pressure sensors with microstructured rubber dielectric layers. Nat. Mater. 9, 859–864 (2010).10.1038/nmat2834 ↗
10. Pan, L. et al. An ultra-sensitive resistive pressure sensor based on hollow-sphere microstructure induced elasticity in conducting polymer film. Nat. Commun. 5, 1–8 (2014).10.1038/ncomms4002 ↗
11. Zang, Y. et al. Flexible suspended gate organic thin-film transistors for ultra-sensitive pressure detection. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–9 (2015).10.1038/ncomms7269 ↗
12. Kim, D.-S. et al. Highly durable crack sensor integrated with silicone rubber cantilever for measuring cardiac contractility. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–13 (2020).10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7 ↗
13. Roh, Y. et al. Vital signal sensing and manipulation of a microscale organ with a multifunctional soft gripper. Sci. Robot. 6, eabi6774 (2021).10.1126/scirobotics.abi6774 ↗
14. Liu, L. et al. Bioinspired, omnidirectional, and hypersensitive flexible strain sensors. Adv. Mater. 34, 2200823 (2022).10.1002/adma.202200823 ↗
15. Wang, S. et al. Skin electronics from scalable fabrication of an intrinsically stretchable transistor array. Nature 555, 83–88 (2018).10.1038/nature25494 ↗
16. Hua, Q. et al. Skin-inspired highly stretchable and conformable matrix networks for multifunctional sensing. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–11 (2018).10.1038/s41467-017-02685-9 ↗
17. Araromi, O. A. et al. Ultra-sensitive and resilient compliant strain gauges for soft machines. Nature 587, 219–224 (2020).10.1038/s41586-020-2892-6 ↗
18. Trung, T. Q. & Lee, N. E. Recent progress on stretchable electronic devices with intrinsically stretchable components. Adv. Mater. 29, 1603167 (2017).10.1002/adma.201603167 ↗
19. Kim, D.-H. et al. Epidermal electronics. Science 333, 838–843 (2011).10.1126/science.1206157 ↗
20. Han, M. et al. Three-dimensional piezoelectric polymer microsystems for vibrational energy harvesting, robotic interfaces and biomedical implants. Nat. Electron. 2, 26–35 (2019).10.1038/s41928-018-0189-7 ↗
21. Miyamoto, A. et al. Inflammation-free, gas-permeable, lightweight, stretchable on-skin electronics with nanomeshes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 907–913 (2017).10.1038/nnano.2017.125 ↗
22. Chung, H. U. et al. Binodal, wireless epidermal electronic systems with in-sensor analytics for neonatal intensive care. Science 363, eaau0780 (2019).10.1126/science.aau0780 ↗
23. Kim, J. J. et al. Skin electronics: next‐generation device platform for virtual and augmented reality. Adv. Funct. Mater. 31, 2009602 (2021).10.1002/adfm.202009602 ↗
24. Kim, K. K. et al. A deep-learned skin sensor decoding the epicentral human motions. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–8 (2020).10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7 ↗
25. Wang, B. et al. Firing frequency maxima of fast-spiking neurons in human, monkey, and mouse neocortex. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 10, 239 (2016).10.3389/fncel.2016.00239 ↗
26. Kim, T. et al. Polyimide encapsulation of spider-inspired crack-based sensors for durability improvement. Appl. Sci. 8, 367 (2018).10.3390/app8030367 ↗
27. Jian, M. et al. Flexible and highly sensitive pressure sensors based on bionic hierarchical structures. Adv. Funct. Mater. 27, 1606066 (2017).10.1002/adfm.201606066 ↗
28. Yao, H. B. et al. A flexible and highly pressure‐sensitive graphene–polyurethane sponge based on fractured microstructure design. Adv. Mater. 25, 6692–6698 (2013).10.1002/adma.201303041 ↗
29. Su, B., Gong, S., Ma, Z., Yap, L. W. & Cheng, W. Mimosa‐inspired design of a flexible pressure sensor with touch sensitivity. Small 11, 1886–1891 (2015).10.1002/smll.201403036 ↗
30. Gong, S. et al. A wearable and highly sensitive pressure sensor with ultrathin gold nanowires. Nat. Commun. 5, 1–8 (2014).10.1038/ncomms4132 ↗
31. Yeo, J. C., Yu, J., Koh, Z. M., Wang, Z. & Lim, C. T. Wearable tactile sensor based on flexible microfluidics. Lab Chip 16, 3244–3250 (2016).10.1039/C6LC00579A ↗
32. Ai, Y. et al. An ultrasensitive flexible pressure sensor for multimodal wearable electronic skins based on large-scale polystyrene ball@ reduced graphene-oxide core–shell nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem. C 6, 5514–5520 (2018).10.1039/C8TC01153B ↗
33. Li, T. et al. A flexible pressure sensor based on an MXene–textile network structure. J. Mater. Chem. C 7, 1022–1027 (2019).10.1039/C8TC04893B ↗
34. Ji, B. et al. Facile preparation of hybrid structure based on mesodome and micropillar arrays as flexible electronic skin with tunable sensitivity and detection range. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11, 28060–28071 (2019).10.1021/acsami.9b08419 ↗
35. Bae, G. Y. et al. Linearly and highly pressure‐sensitive electronic skin based on a bioinspired hierarchical structural array. Adv. Mater. 28, 5300–5306 (2016).10.1002/adma.201600408 ↗
36. Lou, Z., Chen, S., Wang, L., Jiang, K. & Shen, G. An ultra-sensitive and rapid response speed graphene pressure sensors for electronic skin and health monitoring. Nano Energy 23, 7–14 (2016).10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.02.053 ↗
37. Tortora, G. J. & Derrickson, B. H. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (John Wiley & Sons, 2018).
38. Causey, L., Cowin, S. C. & Weinbaum, S. Quantitative model for predicting lymph formation and muscle compressibility in skeletal muscle during contraction and stretch. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9185–9190 (2012).10.1073/pnas.1206398109 ↗
39. Gennisson, J. L., Cornu, C., Catheline, S., Fink, M. & Portero, P. Human muscle hardness assessment during incremental isometric contraction using transient elastography. J. Biomech. 38, 1543–1550 (2005).10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.07.013 ↗
40. Ma, Y. et al. Relation between blood pressure and pulse wave velocity for human arteries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11144–11149 (2018).10.1073/pnas.1814392115 ↗
41. de Vecchi, A. et al. Catheter-induced errors in pressure measurements in vessels: an in-vitro and numerical study. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61, 1844–1850 (2014).10.1109/TBME.2014.2308594 ↗
42. Marik, P. E., Monnet, X. & Teboul, J.-L. Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid therapy. Ann. Intensive Care 1, 1–9 (2011).10.1186/2110-5820-1-1 ↗
43. Rajendra Acharya, U., Paul Joseph, K., Kannathal, N., Lim, C. M. & Suri, J. S. Heart rate variability: a review. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 44, 1031–1051 (2006).10.1007/s11517-006-0119-0 ↗
44. Froelicher, V. F. Jr et al. Prediction of maximal oxygen consumption: comparison of the Bruce and Balke treadmill protocols. CHEST 68, 331–336 (1975).10.1378/chest.68.3.331 ↗
45. Polson, N. G. & Scott, S. L. Data augmentation for support vector machines. Bayesian Anal. 6, 1–23 (2011).
46. Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R. N. 2, 18–22 (2002).