Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a Force Platform
Written By: Ryan Betz
Group Members: Muyang Xu, Bri Perry, Jenna Taormina, Cristina Rascoll, Bianca
Wyman
December 7, 2016
BME 3600W-004L
1
Introduction:
In the United States, there are two main types of arthritis that affect Americans. The two
types of arthritis are osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Osteoarthritis is known as the
everyday wear and tear that the joints experience. As Thitinan Srikulmontree states
“Osteoarthritis most often, it occurs in patients age 40 and above.”[1] He also mentions that risk
factors can increase with older age, obesity, and having family members with osteoarthritis [1].
Obesity is a major issue within the United States so this means the impact of osteoarthritis is
increased. Osteoarthritis is a major healthcare issue, as on average 27 million people are affected
[4]. These people have nerve damage that can lead to stabbing pain as the cartilage between the
joints is worn out. Osteoarthritis is a disease that is most prevalent in joints that are used a lot
such as hand and knees along with loading joints like the spine and hips.
Another type of arthritis is rheumatoid arthritis. Unlike osteoarthritis, the main cause of
rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease. The immune system acts faulty and attacks the
healthy tissue. Rheumatoid arthritis attacks the cartilage in joints and causes the cartilage to
become weak and in some cases non-existent. As stated by Eric Ruderman “Immune cells
release inflammation-causing chemicals. These chemicals can damage cartilage.” [2] This means
that the cartilage is affected in a different way than that with osteoarthritis, but the individual
could have similar symptoms such as piercing nerve pain and limited mobility of the joints.
People with rheumatoid arthritis have issues with moving their joints after a time of inactivity.
This means that if someone did not use their hand for a bit, they might have some issues to start
2
Between the two different types of arthritis, there are many different types of treatments,
but the symptoms really affect the joints. This means stiffness or pain could cause someone to
have troubles with little activities such as cutting up food. Biomedical engineers can find ways in
creating a knife that minimizes the muscle used by the participant while maximizing the force
exerted. Through minimizing the muscle exertion that the participant has to endure, the force on
the joints would be reduced and therefore the patient would be in less pain. In the lab through the
use of a force platform and EMG sensors, this task of finding a design that minimizes the muscle
exertion, but maximizes the force can be found. In the lab, two knifes were compared to examine
the muscle activity and force exerted when a participant was testing. One knife was a traditional
kitchen knife while the other knife was a knife that was designed for people with arthritis.
In modeling the two knifes, the use of a force platform along with the electromyography
data collection system can be implemented. The force platform will examine how much force the
user is able apply while the EMG is used to measure how much muscle activity is needed to
apply the force on the platform. The lab helped to find the knife whose design put the participant
in the least pain while being able to apply the greatest force possible. Through examining the two
knives and the differences in the handle designs, biomedical engineers could find a way to
improve the knife for better productivity when used by an arthritic patient.
Methods:
Throughout the lab, the goal was to use two different knives one was a traditional kitchen
knife while the other was a knife that was made for someone with arthritis. Both knives were
made by the same company, Dexter-Russell, but the designs set the knives apart. The traditional
3
kitchen knife is eight inches long and in the lab is known as V-Lo. The arthritis knife is eight
The first aspect of the lab is to record the height and weight of the participant along with
the name. After these aspects have been recorded, a conversion needs to be done with the height
and weight to the metric system. The height needs to be converted from inches to meters while
the weight needs to be converted from pounds to newtons. The conversions were done online and
recorded as part of the data. The next aspect of the lab involved going over to the force platform
and measuring the distance at which the user is from the table. This measurement is from the
Next component of the lab involves placing the EMG sensors on the four muscles that are
being examined. The four muscles are the triceps, biceps, brachioradialis, and palmaris longus
muscles. The sensors are wireless and the arrow should be placed in the direction of the muscle.
Before placing the sensors on the participant, make sure to use an alcohol wipe to remove any
residue on the skin as this could cause the readings to not be exact. Another issue that needs to be
addressed is the amount of hair on the participant. If the participant has too much hair, there may
need to be hair removed before the sensors can have good contact with the skin and get correct
readings. Through swabbing and removing hair from places where the sensor will be in contact
with the skin, there will be less error associated with the numbers obtained.
The next step involves getting the software ready to record. The first piece of software to
examine is the AMTI Accusway force platform. Before zeroing the platform and getting it ready,
make sure to put a covering surface to protect the force platform where the knife will be pressing
down. The platform after the cover has been applied needs to be zeroed to ensure that the
readings are precise. The NetForce software needs to be set to record for 20 seconds. The next
4
piece of software to set up is the Delsys Trigno Wireless EMG sensor. The four sensors are
placed on the muscles of interest and the software is opened. Once the software is opened, the
EMG sensors have to be labeled to the corresponding muscles that they are attached to. Run the
EMG software and do a trial run to make sure that the sensors are working and the recording
time is the same as the AMTI platform. Press the “Start Test” and type in a file name at which
the file will be saved. After this “Signal Preview” will pop up and make sure the signal is
working and being recorded correctly before advancing with the experiment.
Now that all the software is calibrated and zeroed, have the participant grab the DuoGlide
knife with the dominant hand that would be used when cutting something up. The knife seen in
figure 1 is the DuoGlide knife and make sure the participant is standing 4-6 inches away from
the force platform as this is a distance that mimics the normal distance from a cutting board.
Have the participant place the knife on the cutting board when the operator of the software says
to and press down on the force platform with the force that is sustainable for the 20 second
period. Both programs have been zeroed and calibrated so they will shut off at the same time.
This procedure of placing the knife down and pressing should be repeated two more times with
30 second breaks in between. Make sure the files are saved as Duoglide 1, 2, 3 so each file can
5
Figure 1: DuoGlide Knife
The next part of the experiment is to switch the knife to the traditional knife. This knife
can be seen in figure 2. Repeat the same exercise as before but now with the VLo knife for three
trials and make sure to save as something like VLo 1, 2, 3 to examine each file separately later.
Each trial will last 20 seconds with a thirty second break in between. This will allow the user to
be under the same condition as in the trials with the DuoGlide knife.
The lab part of the experiment was used to collect the data for the different knife trials
and see which knife is more efficient. The AMTI platform data for each trial should be exported
6
to an excel file with a different book for each trial. Find the absolute maximum for the X,Y, and
Z force along with the absolute max for the moments in the X,Y and Z direction.
The final step is to find the average of the EMG data from the Delsys EMG acquisition.
The average can be found by taking the root mean square of each signal using the “Root Mean
Square” function. Once found for each trial and for each muscle record in table for use later in
the lab. The table should be one that mimics that in table 4. This means for each muscle group
there should be six EMG readings. With the values of from the EMG found a ratio can be
determined. This is done by taking the forces and moments in the X,Y and Z direction along with
the moments in the X, Y, and Z direction and dividing these values by the muscle exertion
recorded by the EMG. An example would be dividing the forces in the Y direction by the muscle
exertion for each trial number (YDuoGlide 1/MuscleExertionDuoGlide1). The ratio obtained is
a crucial aspect to examine. The higher the ratio, the better the force to muscle exertion the knife
performs. Each component of data that is recorded can help to show how the knife design alters
the muscle required to generate a force. This can be shown as the force exerted on the board was
large while the amount of muscle energy needed was small. This data will help find a design that
Results:
Equations:
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒(𝑁)
1) 𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑉)
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑁𝑚)
2) 𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑉)
These are the equations used to find the ratios between force and mean voltage along with
moments and mean voltage.
Table 1: Anthropometric data for participant in lab
Participant
7
Subject Name Ryan
Gender Male
Height (m) 1.879
Weight (N) 787
Distance (m) 0.711
Table 2: Table of the max forces in the X, Y, and Z direction for each trial with two different
knives. These values were recorded through the use of an AMTI force platform.
Knife Trial Number Maximum Force in Maximum Force in Maximum Force in
X-Direction (N) Y-Direction (N) Z-Direction (N)
1 1.494 3.950 35.311
DuoGlide 2 2.059 6.899 21.400
3 1.681 4.039 26.858
1 1.868 3.403 23.499
V-Lo 2 2.477 2.677 30.634
3 1.868 3.224 31.893
Table 3: Table of the max moments about the X, Y, and Z axis for each trial with two different
knives. These values were recorded through the use of an AMTI force platform.
Knife Trial Number Maximum Moment Maximum Moment Maximum Moment
about X-axis (Nm) about Y-axis (Nm) about Z-axis (Nm)
1 4.103 0.392 0.355
DuoGlide 2 2.090 0.235 0.343
3 2.864 0.549 0.343
1 3.286 1.021 0.356
V-Lo 2 4.490 0.943 0.482
3 4.721 1.728 0.445
Table 4: Table of Mean EMG forces for each muscle.
Knife Trial Mean EMG Mean EMG of Mean EMG of Mean EMG of
Number of Biceps (V) Triceps (V) Palmaris Longus (V) Brachioradialis (V)
1 3.63 ∗ 10−5 6.57 ∗ 10−5 1.35 ∗ 10−4 1.18 ∗ 10−5
DuoGlide 2 4.04 ∗ 10−5 4.22 ∗ 10−5 1.38 ∗ 10−4 1.27 ∗ 10−5
3 1.38 ∗ 10−5 3.89 ∗ 10−5 8.69 ∗ 10−5 8.04 ∗ 10−6
1 3.72 ∗ 10−6 3.84 ∗ 10−5 1.13 ∗ 10−4 1.04 ∗ 10−5
V-Lo 2 3.62 ∗ 10−6 4.94 ∗ 10−5 1.08 ∗ 10−4 1.01 ∗ 10−5
3 3.69 ∗ 10−6 4.66 ∗ 10−5 1.07 ∗ 10−4 1.10 ∗ 10−5
Table 5: This table gives the values of the forces in the X-Direction divided by the mean muscle
exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.
8
Knife Trial X Force/Mean X Force/Mean X Force/Mean EMG X Force/Mean EMG
Number EMG of EMG of of Palmaris Longus of Brachioradialis
Biceps (F/V) Triceps (F/V) (F/V) (F/V)
1 4.1 ∗ 104 2.27 ∗ 104 1.11 ∗ 104 1.27 ∗ 105
DuoGlide 2 5.1 ∗ 104 4.88 ∗ 104 1.49 ∗ 104 1.62 ∗ 105
3 1.22 ∗ 105 4.32 ∗ 104 1.93 ∗ 104 2.09 ∗ 105
1 4.98 ∗ 105 4.86 ∗ 104 1.65 ∗ 104 1.80 ∗ 105
V-Lo 2 6.84 ∗ 105 5.01 ∗ 104 2.29 ∗ 104 2.45 ∗ 105
3 5.06 ∗ 105 4.00 ∗ 104 1.74 ∗ 104 1.69 ∗ 105
Table 6: This table gives the values of the forces in the Y-Direction divided by the mean muscle
exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.
Knife Trial Y Force/Mean Y Force/Mean Y Force/Mean EMG Y Force/Mean EMG
Number EMG of EMG of of Palmaris Longus of Brachioradialis
Biceps (F/V) Triceps (F/V) (F/V) (F/V)
1 1.08 ∗ 105 6.01 ∗ 104 2.92 ∗ 104 3.35 ∗ 105
DuoGlide 2 1.71 ∗ 105 1.63 ∗ 105 4.99 ∗ 104 5.43 ∗ 105
3 2.92 ∗ 105 1.04 ∗ 105 4.64 ∗ 104 5.02 ∗ 105
1 9.15 ∗ 105 8.86 ∗ 104 3.01 ∗ 104 3.27 ∗ 105
V-Lo 2 7.40 ∗ 105 5.42 ∗ 104 2.48 ∗ 104 2.65 ∗ 105
3 8.73 ∗ 105 6.92 ∗ 104 3.01 ∗ 104 2.93 ∗ 105
Table 7: This table gives the values of the forces in the Z-Direction divided by the mean muscle
exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.
Knife Trial Z Force/Mean Z Force/Mean Z Force/Mean EMG Z Force/Mean EMG
Number EMG of EMG of of Palmaris Longus of Brachioradialis
Biceps (F/V) Triceps (F/V) (F/V) (F/V)
1 9.73 ∗ 105 5.37 ∗ 105 2.62 ∗ 105 2.99 ∗ 106
DuoGlide 2 5.30 ∗ 105 5.07 ∗ 105 1.55 ∗ 105 1.69 ∗ 106
3 1.95 ∗ 106 6.90 ∗ 105 3.09 ∗ 105 3.34 ∗ 106
1 6.32 ∗ 106 6.11 ∗ 105 2.08 ∗ 105 2.26 ∗ 106
V-Lo 2 8.46 ∗ 106 6.20 ∗ 105 2.84 ∗ 105 3.03 ∗ 106
3 8.64 ∗ 106 6.84 ∗ 105 2.98 ∗ 105 2.90 ∗ 106
Table 8: This table gives the values of the forces in the X-Moment divided by the mean muscle
exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.
Knife Trial X moment X moment X moment /Mean X moment /Mean
Number /Mean EMG /Mean EMG EMG of Palmaris EMG of
of Biceps of Triceps Longus (F/V) Brachioradialis (F/V)
(F/V) (F/V)
9
1 1.13 ∗ 105 6.25 ∗ 104 3.04 ∗ 104 3.48 ∗ 105
DuoGlide 2 5.17 ∗ 104 4.95 ∗ 104 1.51 ∗ 104 1.65 ∗ 105
3 2.08 ∗ 105 7.36 ∗ 104 3.30 ∗ 104 3.56 ∗ 105
1 8.83 ∗ 105 8.56 ∗ 104 2.91 ∗ 104 3.16 ∗ 105
V-Lo 2 1.24 ∗ 106 9.09 ∗ 104 4.16 ∗ 104 4.45 ∗ 105
3 1.28 ∗ 106 1.01 ∗ 105 4.41 ∗ 104 4.29 ∗ 105
Table 9: This table gives the values of the forces in the Y-Moment divided by the mean muscle
exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.
Knife Trial Y moment Y moment Y moment /Mean Y moment /Mean
Number /Mean EMG /Mean EMG EMG of Palmaris EMG of
of Biceps of Triceps Longus (F/V) Brachioradialis (F/V)
(F/V) (F/V)
1 1.08 ∗ 104 5.97 ∗ 103 2.90 ∗ 103 3.32 ∗ 104
DuoGlide 2 5.82 ∗ 103 5.57 ∗ 103 1.70 ∗ 103 1.85 ∗ 104
3 3.98 ∗ 104 1.41 ∗ 104 6.32 ∗ 103 6.83 ∗ 104
1 2.74 ∗ 105 2.66 ∗ 104 9.04 ∗ 103 9.82 ∗ 104
V-Lo 2 2.60 ∗ 105 1.91 ∗ 104 8.73 ∗ 103 9.34 ∗ 104
3 4.68 ∗ 105 3.71 ∗ 104 1.61 ∗ 104 1.57 ∗ 105
Table 10: This table gives the values of the forces in the Z-Moment divided by the mean muscle
exertion giving a ratio as to the effectiveness of the knife.
Knife Trial Z moment Z moment Z moment /Mean Z moment /Mean
Number /Mean EMG /Mean EMG EMG of Palmaris EMG of
of Biceps of Triceps Longus (F/V) Brachioradialis (F/V)
(F/V) (F/V)
1 9.78 ∗ 103 5.40 ∗ 103 2.63 ∗ 103 3.01 ∗ 104
DuoGlide 2 8.49 ∗ 103 8.13 ∗ 103 2.49 ∗ 103 2.70 ∗ 104
3 2.49 ∗ 104 8.82 ∗ 103 3.95 ∗ 103 4.27 ∗ 104
1 9.57 ∗ 104 9.27 ∗ 103 3.15 ∗ 103 3.42 ∗ 104
V-Lo 2 1.33 ∗ 105 9.76 ∗ 103 4.46 ∗ 103 4.77 ∗ 104
3 1.21 ∗ 105 9.55 ∗ 103 4.16 ∗ 103 4.05 ∗ 104
Discussion:
Throughout looking at the data collected from both knives, a large difference could be
determined in examining the forces and moments that were exerted. The forces in the X-
direction increased when switching between the DuoGlide knife and the V-Lo knife. The V-Lo
knife had a larger force applied in the x direction than the DuoGlide knife. In the Y and Z
10
direction, the forces from the DuoGlide knife were a little higher than that of the V-Lo knife. In
the moments produced by both knifes, the V-Lo knife produced a greater moments than the
DuoGlide knife. Finally, when looking at the force to muscle exertion ratio it can be seen that the
V-Lo knife produces a much larger ratio than that of the DuoGlide. An example can be seen
when looking at the moment in the Z direction. With the V-Lo knife seen in table 10, the force to
muscle exertion was 1.33*105 while the DuoGlide knife had a force to muscle exertion of
8.49*103. This shows that the V-Lo knife had almost a 10 times greater ratio than the DuoGlide
knife.
In the rest of the tables, the force to muscle exertion is either the on the same magnitude
or in a couple cases the magnitude of the V-Lo knife is ten times greater than that of the
DuoGlide knife. This means that the V-Lo knife was more efficient in transferring the force to
the cutting board which makes cutting objects easier while not causing too much muscle
exertion.
The difference in the Z-forces between the DuoGlide and V-Lo is notable, but similar.
The reason due to the difference could be due to the design of the handle and how the knives are
crafted. The weight of the knives is different and this can cause the Z force to change. Knives are
designed in a way that allows force from the arm to be used to slice through objects. The X and
Y forces are different between the two knives where the one knife has a larger X force while the
other has a larger Y force. This means that the knife was uneven in the pressure being applied to
the cutting board on the force platform. One of the reasons that the V-Lo Z-force could be larger
than that of the DuoGlide is based on this instability of the knife on the surface. Another reason
as to why the forces in the Z-direction for the V-Lo knife are larger than that of the DuoGlide
could be based on muscle fatigue and the participant exerting more force than the DuoGlide
11
knife. The difference in force in the X and Y direction between the DuoGlide and V-Lo knife is
intriguing as the thought was one knife would have a larger force in both directions. This means
that based on the design and handle of the knife, the forces in each direction can be altered. The
Z-direction forces suggest that the internal forces on the joints are higher and this means that the
joints undergo more stress. For someone with arthritis, this means that the V-Lo knife would be
V-Lo produces the greatest force in the joints based on the Z directional force, this
means that the participant would experiences the most pain when dealing with arthritis. This is
due to any large forces in the joint causing the pain as the cartilage that would help to cushion
the loads is broken down. A higher force in the Z-direction would be attributed to force from the
arm being lost in the joints when pushing down on the force platform. The two directions that the
force also could be lost was in the X and Y directions where the instability of the knife on the
board was present. The instability of the knife is during the process in which participant is
pressing the knife down on the board and not able to hold a constant pressure which causes the
knife to shake within the twenty second period of recording. The higher the Z- directional force,
the less efficient the system is as the internal forces in the joints is higher.
Through examining the data, there are two components that are useful in comparing the
effectiveness of the two knives. These two components are the force in the Z-direction and the
moment about the X-axis. The biggest component that is being studied is how much downward
force there was on the platform and what type of internal reaction does this system put on the
joints. The force in the Z direction has an interesting component which is how much forces was
placed on the joints in the system. This is extremely important to examine as the internal reaction
that the joints experience could cause the participant a great deal of pain. For this reason the
12
design of the knife would be to minimize this value. Another component to examine is the
moment in the X- axis. This has Y and Z forces associated with the knife as these forces make up
the moment in the X direction. The Z force is the main force to look at from this moment as the
Z component helps to show the conversion of the force exerted by the arm to the force platform.
The Y force is interesting to look at as well as the knife may have slipped or become unsteady
and the forces in the Y direction help to see how steady the knife was applied to the platform.
The larger the force that the participant has to exert on the knife for the force to be greater the
more pain that will be produced so the goal is to find a design that maximizes the force
The suggested knife for a patient with arthritic pain would be the DuoGlide knife. In
analyzing the results, the DuoGlide knife produced the smallest force in the Z direction which
helped to minimize the internal forces that the joints had to be exposed to. The X and Y forces
were also a nice part of the experiment, but these forces were more of the excess force being
distributed across the force platform when applying a force to the knife. The knife does a great
job in creating a vertical force from the arm, forearm, and wrist to the cutting board. This causes
the forces internally in the wrist to be minimized and this is extremely important. This is due to
the cartilage being broken down along with nerve inflammation which causes the pain to the
patient to increase. The idea is to minimize the force that is exerted on the wrist as this would
create a knife that minimizes the pain for the patient. This is the goal of the DuoGlide knife and
through the abstract design created, the knife performed and minimized the internal stress on the
joints.
Some factors in the lab that may have affected the data include two things. One thing is
the distance that the participant stands away from the force platform while the other has to deal
13
with the height of the participant. In looking at how far the participant stands from the table,
there are a couple of factors that are taken into account. First, if the person stood farther from the
platform there would be different muscles activated for this trial as opposed to closer. Some extra
muscle recruitment could come from the deltoid to keep the arm straight and in the air. The
second problem with standing farther from the board is the force that the participant is able to
exert on the board. With the participant farther away from the board, the force applied is going to
be less than that of someone who is closer to the board. This is due to using the individual’s body
weight over the knife when the individual is closer in comparison to using mostly triceps when
the person is farther away. If the person is tall this can cause another change to system that may
change the results. This is due to the person that is taller might use more of their body weight
over the knife to create a force while the shorter individual will be using more of the arm
muscles if they are closer to shoulder height with the board. The height issue can have a similar
Some sources of error from the experiment are mainly human errors. One source of error
is the participant moving during the experiment. If the participant moved from the first measured
spot the data might not truly reflect how much force is being applied internally to the joints. A
way to minimize this type of error is measure the distance for the person to stand and have them
stay there the whole time. The other individuals in the group can hand the person the knives
when switching so the distance between the person and the board stays the same. Another source
of error deals with operating the AMTI software. If after the trial commences, the individual
operating the system does not zero the platform, the results could be skewed and not give the
correct data. Even though the changes might be small, the precision will be low and the data
collected may not paint the correct picture as to how the knife performed. The last source of
14
error is associated with the EMG system. If the EMG sensors are not labeled correctly when
assigning which sensor is to which muscle, then the data collected would be wrong as data from
the biceps might be actually be from the triceps. This would cause the ratios to be all screwed up
and give insufficient data as to how much the muscles exerted in comparison to the force.
Another error that could be associated with the lab muscle fatigue as the experiment goes
on. This means that as the trials become later and later, the participant may not be able to supply
the same amount of force like in trial 1. This would cause the data to be influenced as the
experiment progresses which isn’t good. A reasoning is based on the muscles building up lactic
acid as the trials go on which means that the muscles will not be able to perform as well in
comparison to the beginning. A way to minimize this error is to shorten the trials so there is less
The final error can be associated with the similarity to the knife. If the participant was
used to a knife that mimicked the V-Lo knife, this knife would be more comfortable. This
comfort level could cause results that actually mimic how the knife influences the participant.
For the DuoGlide knife the participant did not feel comfortable with the knife and this could
have caused the data to be skewed as more muscle could have been used to apply a force to the
platform than that of the V-Lo knife. A way to minimize this error could be associated with
giving a few trial runs before testing to get used to both knives as this familiarity would give
results that mimic how the knife would be affect people in kitchens nationwide.
15
Reference:
[1]American, "Diseases and conditions osteoarthritis," 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Osteoarthritis.
Accessed: Nov. 21, 2016.
[2]American, "Diseases and conditions rheumatoid arthritis," 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Rheumatoid-
Arthritis. Accessed: Nov. 21, 2016.
[3 ]Gielo-Perczak, Krystyna, Ph.D. “Lab#7W Knife Handle Design for People With Arthritis.”
BME 3600 Lab. Bronwell, Storrs. 9 November. 2016. Lab
[4]R. Fleming, O. of Communications, and P. Liaison, "Handout on health: Osteoarthritis," 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://www.niams.nih.gov/health_info/osteoarthritis/. Accessed: Nov. 21,
2016.
Appendix:
16
Figure 3: EMG sensor on the Tricep Figure 4: EMG sensors on the biceps,
of Participant brachioradialis, and palmaris longus
17
Figure 6: Example of EMG signal received through
testing from the triceps.
18