Search

To help educators deliver their physiology laboratory courses remotely, we developed an inexpensive, customizable hardware kit along with freely available teaching resources. We based the course design on four principles that should allow students to conduct insightful experiments on different physiological systems. First, the experimental setup should not be constrained to laboratory environments. Second, students should be able to take this course without prior coding and electronics experience. Third, the hardware kit should be relatively inexpensive, and all other resources should be freely available. Fourth, all resources should be customizable for educators. The hardware kit consists of commercially available electronic components, with a microcontroller as its hub (Arduino friendly). All measurement systems can be assembled without soldering. The hardware kit is cost-effective (approximately the cost of a textbook) and can be customized depending upon instructional needs. All software is freely available, and we share all necessary codes in open-access online repositories for simple use and customizability. All lab manuals and additional video tutorials are also freely available online and customizable. In our particular course, we have weekly asynchronous physiology lectures and one synchronous laboratory session, where students can get help with their equipment. In this article, we only focus on the novel and open-source laboratory part of the course. The laboratory includes four units [data acquisition, ECG, electromyography (EMG), activity classification] and one final project. It is our intent that these resources will allow other educators to rapidly implement their own remote physiology laboratories or to extend our work into other pedagogical applications of wearable technology.

Animals are much better at running than robots. The difference in performance arises in the important dimensions of agility, range, and robustness. To understand the underlying causes for this performance gap, we compare natural and artificial technologies in the five subsystems critical for running: power, frame, actuation, sensing, and control. With few exceptions, engineering technologies meet or exceed the performance of their biological counterparts. We conclude that biology's advantage over engineering arises from better integration of subsystems, and we identify four fundamental obstacles that roboticists must overcome. Toward this goal, we highlight promising research directions that have outsized potential to help future running robots achieve animal-level performance. Editor's summary: Strategies for robot locomotion have often taken inspiration from animals. But robots still fall short when compared to the inherent performance of animals. Burden et al. review the literature and discuss why animals outrun robots in categories such as agility, range, and robustness. The authors highlight that, with few exceptions, engineering outperforms biology in the components critical for running, so they conclude that there must be as-yet-undiscovered principles of integration and control that give animals their advantage over robots. —Amos Matsiko [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Biomechanical energy harvesting–generating electricity from people during daily activities–is a promising alternative to batteries for powering increasingly sophisticated portable devices. We recently developed a wearable knee-mounted energy harvesting device that generated electricity during human walking. In this methods-focused paper, we explain the physiological principles that guided our design process and present a detailed description of our device design with an emphasis on new analyses. Methods Effectively harvesting energy from walking requires a small lightweight device that efficiently converts intermittent, bi-directional, low speed and high torque mechanical power to electricity, and selectively engages power generation to assist muscles in performing negative mechanical work. To achieve this, our device used a one-way clutch to transmit only knee extension motions, a spur gear transmission to amplify the angular speed, a brushless DC rotary magnetic generator to convert the mechanical power into electrical power, a control system to determine when to open and close the power generation circuit based on measurements of knee angle, and a customized orthopaedic knee brace to distribute the device reaction torque over a large leg surface area. Results The device selectively engaged power generation towards the end of swing extension, assisting knee flexor muscles by producing substantial flexion torque (6.4 Nm), and efficiently converted the input mechanical power into electricity (54.6%). Consequently, six subjects walking at 1.5 m/s generated 4.8 ± 0.8 W of electrical power with only a 5.0 ± 21 W increase in metabolic cost. Conclusion Biomechanical energy harvesting is capable of generating substantial amounts of electrical power from walking with little additional user effort making future versions of this technology particularly promising for charging portable medical devices.