The mentioned sections can be found separate,
intermixed or integrated depending on the design,
but the objectives of their functions can be readily
separated if needs be.
3.1 Sensing Section
Advances in micro-fluidics, material science, nano-
structures, micro-electromechanical devices,
bioelectrical interfaces, and others; have contributed
to a new generation of wearable and implantable
sensors and monitoring devices. Healthcare has
greatly benefitted from the development of
biosensors (also referred to as chemical sensors)
(Patel et al., 2006) and physiological sensors. Such
achievements have paved the way for truly pervasive
monitoring strategies, which will benefit patients
and reduce the load to health-care facilities. From a
sport monitoring perspective, non-invasive,
minimally intrusive sensors are the preferred choice,
and consideration of their positioning, calibration,
noise, offset, deviation, etc., are concerns (Yang and
Shouqian, 2007). There exist a wide array of
commercially available sensors and even more
experimental devices and concepts waiting their
turn.
3.2 Processing Section
In today’s market, the competition to claim to be the
lowest powered microcontroller is fierce. Depending
of the complexity required by the application and the
feature extraction methods to be applied, an array of
Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) or
Advanced RISC Machine (ARM) architecture based
microcontrollers offer different features which
accommodate varying solutions. Based on the
popular “motes” designs and further research in the
area (unpublished work from the authors), there
seems to be a preference for Texas Instrument
MSP430 ultra-low power, Atmel’s ATMEGA ultra-
low power, and the Microchip’s extreme-low-power
(XLP) PIC microcontrollers. Using the power
specifications, indicated on the datasheet of each
microcontroller, as a base for comparison, can
sometimes lead to problems and confusion; careful
attention must be paid to the conditions in which
each manufacturer measures their devices power
consumption.
3.3 Transmitting Section
When referring to WMS, it is unavoidable to
consider a wireless component for interfacing with
the system; either be it for real-time (or continuous)
or sporadic updating to a remote processing node, or
for downloading the collected stored data, or even
for transmitting the data from a sensor node to the
on-body or remote processing unit. The presence of
cables or the need for physical removal of the device
for data download represents an alternative that
while permissible at prototyping and troubleshooting
stages, is impractical at more advance stages of
design and implementation.
A number of alternatives exist for mid-range
wireless communication including common
protocols (GSM, WiMAX, UMTS, WLAN, etc.) and
upcoming 4G mobile communication solutions.
From a more local point of view the IEEE 802.15
Workgroup has introduced and arrays of solutions.
Among the favorite standards one counts with the
IEEE 802.15.1, known as Bluetooth, and the IEEE
802.15.4, also referred to as Zigbee. The number of
low-power short-range transceivers in the market
today is enough to overwhelm even experienced
researchers. It seems every brand offers their
particular RF solution, claiming low-power
transmission; companies such as Texas Instrument,
Atmel, Semtech, Maxim and Microchip (to mention
a few), offer interesting and varying solutions.
4 WIMU
For years, numerous devices and setups have been
implemented in order to assist on swimming
performance analysis. Many of these devices were
based on video analysis, while others made direct
measurement and signal capturing through awkward
setups, generally uncomfortable for the swimmer
and thus affecting hers/his performance. Advances
in a number of fields have allowed for compact
wearable monitoring devices, greatly improving the
data gathering process and closing the gap for a truly
seamless biomechanical signal monitoring solution.
Although there is a relatively reduced number of
biomechanical signal monitoring systems being used
for swimming performance analysis today
(particularly when compared to the number of
wearable monitoring devices for healthcare or even
for land based sports), a shift on the approaches for
swimming analysis is being noted. Different
strategies have been applied by the mentioned
systems, however a common element seem to be
their dependence on accelerometers. Some systems
worth mentioning are the ETH Zurich Wearable
Computing Laboratory’s SwimMaster (Bächlin et
WIMU: WEARABLE INERTIAL MONITORING UNIT - A MEMS-based Device for Swimming Performance Analysis
89