Session T3F

A Two-Channel Bioamplifier Design as a Cross-Course Experience

Steve Warren, James DeVault, and Kejia Li
Kansas State University, Electrical & Computer Engineering, 2061 Rathbone Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA Phone: (785) 5325600, Fax: (785) 5321188, Email: swarren@ksu.edu, jdevault@ksu.edu, and kejiali@ksu.edu Abstract A cross-course design experience is an efficient way to stitch together two concurrent, singlesemester courses to obtain a meaningful number of design credits without unduly increasing a students overall load. This paper addresses a project that joined the design credits from two Kansas State University (KSU) courses: ECE 773 Bioinstrumentation Design Laboratory and ECE 502 Electronics Laboratory. The goal of each project team was to design, build, and demonstrate a two-channel bioamplifier that is functionally similar to a commercial bioamplifier used in the KSU AP 773 Bioinstrumentation Laboratory course taken by some of these students. Assessment of the experience was provided via a post-project survey that addressed eight learning objectives, learning in 23 technical areas, project administration, and the overall experience. Survey results were positive across the board. Though the time commitment was significant, the students appreciated the opportunity to work on a complex system that required their collective expertise. Index Terms Amplifiers, biomedical instrumentation,
biosignals, capstone design, filters, team work

elements of design and analysis in a more meaningful way [6-8]. These thoughts motivated the cross-course project presented here an effort that joined the Fall 2009 design credits associated with two concurrent courses: ECE 773 Bioinstrumentation Design Laboratory and ECE 502 Electronics Laboratory. The two-fold goal was to increase the number of design credits and provide a biomedical context for an otherwise generic design experience. Fig. 1 depicts the participating students/faculty.

FIGURE 1 PARTICIPANTS IN THE CROSS-COURSE DESIGN EXPERIENCE

I. INTRODUCTION A. Motivation Hands-on design experiences are emphasized by ABET Inc. through the requirement that senior capstone design experiences be incorporated into ABET-accredited curricula [1]. Faculty generally agree that such experiences offer more in-depth learning when compared to traditional lectures and scripted laboratories. The KSU Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering (ECE) [2] offers undergraduate curricula consistent with that theme. In a single-semester course that offers both lecture and design components, an instructor can find it difficult to address the lecture material and still retain enough course time to guide a substantive design effort. A cross-course design experience is therefore an efficient way to stitch two such courses together to increase the aggregate number of design credits for a given project without unduly increasing an individual students overall load [3]. An added benefit of this approach is that each course can inform the other, enriching students experiences by supplying context that may have otherwise been lacking [4, 5] or merging the

B. Course Descriptions ECE 773 Bioinstrumentation Design Laboratory (1 hour) is a required single-semester design course for KSU Electrical Engineering (EE) seniors enrolled in the Bioengineering Option. This course is a co-requisite to ECE 772 Bioinstrumentation Lecture (2 hours) and AP 773 Bioinstrumentation Laboratory (1 hour), a course pair also offered to upper-level students in non-EE curricula [9]. The courses address biomedical sensors, biomedical signals, instrumentation, computer-based data acquisition, and medical imaging. Students work in teams to develop sensor-based systems that acquire, process, and display health monitoring data. ECE 502 Electronics Laboratory (2 hours) is a juniorlevel, single-semester laboratory required for all KSU EE students. Topics include operational amplifier applications, large- and small-signal amplifier performance testing, analog filters, and analog-to-digital (A/D) (and digital-toanalog (D/A)) conversion. Students enter this course with diverse skill sets, so early-semester activities incrementally progress from a completely specified exercise to an openended experiment requiring a student-designed procedure. The final third of the semester is dedicated to team projects.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12-15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3F-1

Session T3F
II. METHODOLOGY A. Brief Project Description The goal of this project was to design, build, and demonstrate a two-channel bioamplifier (biomedical signal amplifier) that is functionally similar to the iWorx ETH-255 Bioamplifier [10] depicted in Fig. 2. Each channel was to provide pre-amplification signal offsets, four amplifier gain settings, allpass/lowpass/highpass/notch filters that operate in cascade, and electrical isolation between a sensor and the bioamplifier circuitry. The unit needed to incorporate a plug-in power adapter, standard connector support, a poweron indicator, control knobs, and an enclosure. End-ofsemester deliverables included team presentations, hardware demonstrations, and user manuals. B. Learning Objectives This project supported eight learning objectives that took the following form: Upon completion of this project, team members should be able to 1. Describe the role of biosignal amplification and filtering circuitry in a real world context 2. Acquire physiologic data with biomedical sensors 3. Partition the design of a biosignal amplifier into smaller, more manageable units 4. Condition biomedical signals to remove noise and other unwanted signal components 5. Describe the tradeoffs encountered when designing filters that exhibit lowpass, highpass, bandpass, and bandstop characteristics 6. Document the features of a bioamplifier and instruct others in its use 7. Match team members to project areas that utilize their interests and skills 8. Work more effectively with individuals having different areas of expertise C. Bioamplifier Requirements Each bioamplifier was to demonstrate the following specific features/functionality: Two input/output signal channels DIN-8 connectors for the input signal cables Coaxial connectors for the output signals Wall wart transformer for bioamplifier power, using a standard power jack LED power-on indicator Knobs to control signal offsets, gains, and filter cutoff frequencies Input signal offsets that operate prior to signal amplification and/or filtering Signal gains of 1, 10, 100, and 1000 Lowpass, highpass, bandpass, and bandstop filters that can operate in cascade Lowpass filter cutoffs: 4/50/150/2000 Hz plus wideband Highpass filter cutoffs of 0/0.1/3 Hz 60/120 Hz bandstop filters engaged or bypassed with a switch or push button Electrical isolation (signal and power) between the sensor and the amplification/filtering circuitry

D. Project Administration Students enrolled in the Fall semester of ECE 773 (seven students) and ECE 502 (21 students) were divided into five teams, each of which designed a two-channel bioamplifier (three students were enrolled in both courses). The five team leaders (and two co-leaders) were chosen from the ECE 773 student pool with the thought that their additional experience with biomedical devices would help them to better define the bioamplifier requirements for the signals of interest: electrocardiograms, plethysmograms, electromyograms, and other traditional biomedical waveforms. Additionally, most of these students had already taken ECE 502 as part of their required EE curriculum, so they were already familiar with some of the subject areas to be addressed during the project. For part of their ECE 773 credit, team leaders negotiated design roles, submitted weekly updates to the instructors, and collated material for user manuals and presentations. Responsibilities for a five-member team were typically aligned with these design areas: (1) power supply, (2) isolation amplifier, (3) filters and offsets, (4) switching, and (5) physical connections and case. The signal visualization method was discretionary. To save time, each team prototyped circuitry on breadboards, created a wire-wrapped version of the final designs, and then housed the circuitry in a case. Cases, buttons, and parts were provided by KSU ECE. The team with the overall best design was given the option to construct printed-circuit-board versions of their bioamplifier to be displayed during the Spring 2010 KSU Open House, where the intent was to use that design in subsequent course offerings. E. Deliverables Bioamplifier operation was demonstrated with signals from a CB Sciences C-ISO-255 electrocardiograph (see Figure 2A) and an iWorx pulse plethysmograph (see Figure 2A); these devices incorporate DIN-8 connectors (see Figure 2D). Each team assessed tradeoffs between at least two designs for each filter type. They were also required to create a user manual for their device that incorporates subsystem descriptions, experimental transfer functions for all filter settings, filter tradeoffs, references, and operating instructions. Bioamplifier designs were presented during the scheduled ECE 773 final exam period. F. End-of-Semester Assessment Surveys Surveys recorded student perceptions of learning, tallied project elements that students liked/disliked, and archived suggested project improvements. Survey results are listed and discussed in the next section.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12-15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3F-2

Session T3F

IWORX ETH-255 BIOAMPLIFIER:

FIGURE 2 A BIOAMPLIFIER, CB SCIENCES C-ISO-255 ELECTROCARDIOGRAPH, AND IWORX PULSE PLETHYSMOGRAPH; B ETH-255 FRONT PANEL; C ETH-255 BACK PANEL; D DIN-8 CONNECTOR

III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION A. Student Design Products The project was substantial given end-of-semester time constraints, but all five teams demonstrated functional units. High-level signal flow and switching approaches varied, as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. Further, each group designed its front and back panel layouts differently; an example is depicted in Fig. 5. Most of the lowpass and highpass filter designs were traditional (e.g., an 8th-order Butterworth filter constructed from a cascade of 2nd-order Sallen-Key filters), whereas the 60 Hz notch filters demonstrated variety. Final products were relatively complex and in some cases quite impressive. Two of the final designs are pictured in Fig. 6.

FIGURE 4 SIGNAL FLOW AND SWITCHING (GROUP D)

Front Panel

Rear Panel

FIGURE 3 SIGNAL FLOW DIAGRAMS FROM TWO DESIGN TEAMS (GROUP A: TOP; GROUP E: BOTTOM)

FIGURE 5 EXAMPLE FRONT AND BACK PANEL LAYOUTS (GROUP B)

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12-15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3F-3

Session T3F

FIGURE 6 FINAL BIOAMPLIFIER DESIGNS FROM TWO DESIGN TEAMS

by the student self assessments in Table I. In each area, the students comfort level increased between project onset and completion. The most improvement was noted on objectives 1, 3, 4, and 6, which address facets of these amplifiers and filters that are directly related to the characteristics of biomedical signals; quantities not normally addressed in the core EE curriculum outside of the EE Bioengineering Option. Moderate improvement was noted on objectives 3 and 5. The sensors used by the students were off-the-shelf units that simply needed to be plugged into the amplifier, so objective 3 did not get much attention. The design of a third sensor from scratch was originally included in the project description (and would have helped with objective 3), but it was removed as a means to lessen the student time commitment. Regarding objective 5, these students had already been introduced to filter tradeoffs in multiple lecture and laboratory contexts, so only moderate learning was anticipated. The least improvement was seen in objectives 78. First, the students were primarily self-selective regarding team tasks, so matching of expertise and skills was not practiced. Second, most of these students skill sets were consistent from student to student, as they had all progressed through the same curriculum, leading to minimal learning regarding multidisciplinary team efforts. Technical Proficiency Survey. As expected, the technical areas that demonstrated the largest increase in perceived proficiency were those that were initially the least familiar to the students but required attention to achieve a working system: biomedical sensor interfacing, DIN-8 connector use, electrical isolation, wire wrapping, and C. Survey Interpretation biomedical signal conditioning. Moderate proficiency gains Learning Objectives Survey. After an assessment of (s in the range of (1.4, 1.8)) were experienced in the areas user manuals and presentations/slides, the project learning of signal offset circuitry, notch filter design, filter cascades, objectives were clearly met in aggregate. This is confirmed switching, and enclosure design. 978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12-15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3F-4 B. Student Survey Results The first two survey elements (Tables I and II) addressed project learning objectives and technical areas. In these tables, the Pre and Post columns represent student perceptions of their comfort and proficiency before and after the project, respectively. The column represents the average difference between those pre- and post-project ratings.) Numbers represent averages for the entire set of participants. While roles were initially mapped to specific learning objectives and technical areas, those data were not tallied separately, since each student contributed to areas outside of their role. The third survey element (Table III) sought project opinions. Open-ended questions followed: What part of the project did you like the most? What part of the project was your least favorite? Did you have any general frustrations? In retrospect, would have you done anything differently between the time the project was assigned and the submission deadline? How could a project of this nature be improved? What other general comments come to mind? Finally, experience reveals that some students ride along given contributions of capable teammates, completing a degree while lacking in essential skills. The survey elements in Table IV were appended to more realistically assess the contributions of individual team members within the overall scope of the project.

Session T3F
TABLE I LEARNING OBJECTIVES SURVEY On a scale of 1 to 5, note your comfort level with these learning objectives, where 1 means no comfort and 5 means high confidence. Respon d to all objectives, even those that did not relate directly to your project role(s). LEARNING OBJECTIVE 1. Describe the role of biosignal amplification/ filtering circuitry in a real world context 2. Acquire physiologic data with biomedical sensors 3. Partition the design of a biosignal amplifier into smaller, more manageable units 4. Condition biomedical signals to remove noise and other unwanted signal components 5. Describe the tradeoffs encountered when designing filters that exhibit lowpass, highpass, bandpass, and bandstop characteristics 6. Document the features of a bioamplifier and instruct others in its use 7. Match team members to project areas that utilize their interests and skills 8. Work more effectively with individuals having different areas of expertise TABLE II TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY SURVEY This project addressed various facets of bioamplifier design. On a scale of 1 to 5, note your proficiency/understanding level in these areas, where a 1 denotes no proficiency and a 5 denotes a solid understanding. TECHNICAL AREA Biomedical sensor interfacing and application DIN-8 connector use BNC output connectors Electrical isolation Power conversion from a wall outlet Battery-controlled sub-circuit operation (if used) Instrumentation amplifier usage/design Signal offset circuitry Gain circuitry Lowpass filter design Highpass filter design Notch filter design Filter cascades Physical switch usage Gain and cutoff frequency switching issues LED indicator application Electronic component selection Board layout Wire wrapping Enclosure design/layout Circuit simulation tools Source separation into signal and artifact Biosignal conditioning in general PRE 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.7 2.5 3.1 2.9 3.9 3.2 3.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.7 1.1 2.3 3.7 2.0 1.7 Post 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.7 4.2 3.1 3.8 1.9 2.1 1.2 2.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.3 3.0 1.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 PRE 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.8 3.1 3.3 Post 4.2 3.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 2.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.3 0.7 0.8 STUDENT TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION AREA CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 TABLE IV SELF AND TEAM MEMBER ASSESSMENT SURVEY Each team member ideally contributed to a specific area of the project. Please rate the contributions of your fellow team members in the following categories. These data will be used to supplement observations made by the instructors and will remain confidential. Categories 1. Amount of effort put forth by the student (1 = too little; 5 = too much) 2. Amount of effort expected of them given their project role (1 = none; 5 = too much) 3. Effectiveness of their technical contribution (1 = minimal; 5 = indispensable) 4. Their contribution to team dynamics (1 = harmful; 3 = neutral; 5 = positive) 5. Their availability, proactivity, and reliability (1 = minimal; 5 = tremendous) If you did not interact with a person enough to provide a reasonable rating for their contribution in a given category, simply place an X in the corresponding box.

TABLE III OVERALL EXPERIENCE SURVEY ITEM Percentage of the planned amplifier functionality that your team was able to successfully implement (1 = 20%, 2 = 40%, etc.) Your personal level of interest in the material (1 = no interest, 5 = extreme interest) Level of effort required by the team (1 = too little; 5 = too much) Level of effort required by yourself (1 = too little; 5 = too much) Access to instructor/TA assistance (1 = nonexistent; 5 = ideal) Weekly discussions & design reviews (1 = no help; 5 = effective) Hardware/software resources and facilities provided to enable the completion of your project (1 = inadequate; 5 = perfect) VAL 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.3 4.3

Overall Experience Survey. This survey indicated that students were able to implement most of the planned board functionality and that they found the experience to be interesting. Students reported that the project required a lot of work, with the implication that better access to instructor help would have been desirable. Lackluster responses to the design reviews imply an area of focus in future offerings. Open-Ended Questions. As in most survey instruments, the open-ended questions yielded the most interesting and useful data. When students were asked what they liked the most, many of their responses (13 of 34, or 38.2%) focused on the building process and the coming together of the separate components to form the overall system. This included the team interactions that made the consolidation possible. With respect to technical subjects, the areas of instrumentation (including filter design) and wire-wrapping each received 5 of 34 responses (14.7%). The general area of design, troubleshooting, and hands-on work also received 6 responses (17.6%). The work with the power supply, case, and new design tools were also of minor note. When asked what they liked the least, student responses (11 of 26, or 42.3%) centered on the integration of a system of disjoint, wire-wrapped pieces that was awkward to integrate and debug. The process would take hours, leading to a secondary theme noted by the students: the lack of time needed to complete the assignment (4 of 26, or 15.4%). Other complaints (5 of 26, or 19.2%) spoke to team dynamics, including variations in participation level, a desire for team unity, poor team communication, and unnamed problems. While these latter issues could be negatively construed, the instructors were glad these responses emerged, since their presence meant that the project exposed students to practical team issues they will face as practicing engineers.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12-15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3F-5

Session T3F
When the students considered what they would do differently, most of their responses (20 of 28, or 71.4%) addressed better management of time and processes. This included starting earlier, improved layout planning, better sub-circuit test procedures, increased time allocation for system assembly, better use of interim deadlines, earlier emphasis on the power supply, and breadboard builds prior to wire wrapping. Two students stated that they would not have done anything differently on this project. In terms of suggested project improvements, student responses (16 out of 30, or 53.3%) centered on an earlier start to the project. Other suggestions were varied and included the following: a smaller-scale project to wire wrap prior to the effort, a single channel instead of two, a PCB design for the interior board(s), better component availability (resistors and capacitors), a larger case, clear responsibility mapping to team members, static project specifications, more background information on the biomedical signals, and filter cascade dialogue. A number of general comments (7 of 15, or 46.7%) put the project in a positive light, praising the effort as one of the most complicated, interesting, and informative projects these students have addressed in their undergraduate curriculum. Even in light of the minor challenges, the project was construed as an excellent hands-on learning opportunity and a good real-world application: a welcome alternative to a simulated system exercise. Negative general comments that were offered dealt primarily with team dynamics: over-controlling project leaders, struggles with meeting times, and dissatisfaction with technical assignments. It is worth noting that these latter comments were so infrequent as to be almost anecdotal. IV. CONCLUSION This paper presented a cross-course design project that merged physiological parameter and sensor concepts from a biomedical instrumentation course with analog filter and hardware assembly concepts from a generic electronics laboratory course. The primary goals of this experience were to (1) merge projects from two courses to create an overall more substantive design experience and (2) lend a biomedical context to an otherwise generic design project that would direct students toward the idea of design with clear societal benefit. The instructors consider this effort a successful learning experience based on informal student feedback, data accumulated from post-project surveys, the quality of the user manuals, and the functional hardware designed by the various student groups. While the project itself required more overall work than a typical project would require in either of the constituent individual courses, the students found it satisfying to work in groups to create more complex, tangible projects that benefitted from the varied talents represented on each team. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Steve Booth, KSU ECE, for his assistance with the parts and cases needed for this project. The authors also acknowledge the team members that provided some of the content for the figures in this paper: Group A Cody Barthuly, Jeremy Harris, Jack Plummer, Tanner Reynolds, and Alex Silva Group B Jeff Schuler, Brian Tierney, Channing Navis, Faleh Alskran, and Adam Frakes Group C Chris Newlin, Aaron Ortbals, Shwan Alkhatib, and Dana Gude Group D Jim Groening, John Hill, Derek Brown, Luke Stauffer, and MHammad Lershaid Group E Adriann Sullivan, Riley Harrington, Cochise Fant, Devon Krenzel, and Aaron Snuffer REFERENCES
[1] "ABET: Leadership and Quality Assurance in Applied Science, Computing, Engineering, and Technology Education," ABET Inc., 2008, http://www.abet.org/. [2] "KSU Electrical & Computer Engineering," 2011, http://www.eece.ksu.edu/. [3] Warren, Steve and James DeVault, "A Biosignal Acquisition and Conditioning Board as a Cross-Course Senior Design Project," Frontiers in Education 2008, Saratoga Hotel and Conference Center, Saratoga Springs, NY, Oct. 22-25, 2008, pp. S3C6-S3C11. [4] Newcomer, Jeffrey L., "Cross-Course Design Projects for Engineering Technology Students," 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV, Oct.r 10-13, 2001, pp. F1G-1F1G-6. [5] David R. Sawyers, Jr. and Clifford R. Mirman, "Experimental Concepts in a Cross-Disciplinary Capstone Course for Mechanical Engineers," Frontiers in Education 1998, Tempe, AZ, November 4-7, 1998, pp. 405-410. [6] Nokleby, Remon Pop-Iliev and Scott B., "Cross-Course Integrated Group Design Projects: 1 + 1 = 11," 3rd CDEN/RCCI International Design Conference (CDEN 2006), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada July 24-26, 2006 [7] Mercier, Emma M., Angela Booker, and Shelley Goldman, "Bringing Collaboration Front and Center in a Cross-Disciplinary Design Course," World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada, June 27, 2005, pp. 48954900. [8] Amon, Cristina H., Susan Finger, and Daniel P. Siewiorek, "Integration of Design Education, Research and Practice at Carnegie Mellon University: A Multi-Disciplinary Course in Wearable Computer Design," Frontiers in Education 1995, Atlanta, GA, November 1-4, 1995, pp. 4a1.14-4a1.22. [9] Miller, Ruth, Steve Warren, and Daniel Marcus, "A Multidisciplinary Course in Biomedical Instrumentation," 36th ASEE Midwest Section Conference, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, March 7-9, 2001. [10] "iWorx: Labs By Design for the Life Sciences," 2011, http://www.iworx.com/.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12-15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3F-6