Search

A prime concern for automated vehicles is motion comfort, as an uncomfortable ride may reduce acceptance of the technology amongst the general population. However, it is not clear how transient motions typical for travelling by car affect the experience of comfort. Here, we determine the relation between properties of vehicle motions (i.e., acceleration and jerk) and discomfort empirically, and we evaluate the ability of normative models to account for the data. 23 participants were placed in a moving-base driving simulator and presented sinusoidial and triangular motion pulses with various peak accelerations (Amax0.4 - 2 ms-2) and jerks (Jmax0.5 - 15 ms-3), designed to recreate typical vehicle accelerations. Participants provided discomfort judgments on absolute 'Verbal Qualifiers' and relative 'Magnitude Estimates' associated with these motions. The data show that discomfort increases with acceleration amplitude, and that the strength of this effect depends on the direction of motion. We furthermore find that higher jerks (shorter duration pulses) are considered more comfortable, and that triangular pulses are more comfortable than sinusoidal pulses. ME responses decrease (i.e., reduced discomfort) with increasing pulse duration. Evaluations of normative models of vibration and shock (ISO 2631), and perceived motion intensity provide mixed results. The vibration model could not account for the data well. Reasonable agreement between predictions and observations were found for the shock model and perceived intensity model, which emphasize the role of acceleration. We present novel statistical models that describe motion comfort as a function of acceleration, jerk, and direction. The present findings are essential to develop motion planning algorithms aimed at maximizing comfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dialysis modalities and their various treatment schedules result from complex compromises ('trade-offs') between medical, financial, technological, ergonomic, and ecological factors. This study targets summarizing the mutual influence of these trade-offs on (trans)portable, wearable, or even (partially) implantable haemodialysis (HD) systems, identify what systems are in development, and how they might improve quality of life (QoL) for patients with kidney failure., Methods: HD as defined by international standard IEC 60601-2-16 was applied on a PUBMED database query regarding (trans)portable, wearable, and (partly) implantable HD systems. Out of 159 search results, 24 were included and scanned for specific HD devices and/or HD systems in development. Additional information about weight, size, and development status was collected by the internet and/or contacting manufacturers. International airplane hand baggage criteria formed the boundary between transportable and portable. Technology readiness levels (TRLs) were assigned by combining TRL scales from the European Union and NATO medical staff., Results: The query revealed 13 devices/projects: seven transportable (six TRL9, one TRL5); two portable (one TRL6-7, one TRL4); two wearable (one TRL6, one frozen); and two partly implantable (one TRL4-5, one TRL2-3)., Discussion: Three main categories of technical approaches were distinguished: single-pass, dialysate regenerating, and implantable HD filter with extracorporeal dialysate regeneration (in climbing order of mobility)., Conclusions: Kidneys facilitate mobility by excreting strongly concentrated waste solutes with minimal water loss. Mimicking this kidney function can increase HD system mobility. Dialysate-regenerating HD systems are enablers for portability/wearability and, combined with durable implantable HD filters (once available), they may enable HD without needles or intravascular catheters. However, lack of funding severely hampers progress., Competing Interests: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)