2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)

Students’ perspectives on Remote Physiological

Signals Acquisition Experiments

Carla Barros, Celina P. Leão Filomena Soares, Graça Minas

Department of Production and Systems Industrial Electronics Department
School of Engineering of University of Minho School of Engineering of University of Minho
Guimarães, Portugal Guimarães, Portugal
{carla.barros, cpl}@dps.uminho.pt {fsoares, gminas}@dei.uminho.pt

José Machado
Department of Mechanical Engineering
School of Engineering, University of Minho
CT2M (Mechanical and Materials Technologies Centre)
Guimarães, Portugal
jmachado@dem.uminho.pt

Abstract— Data acquisition of physiological signals is a very
important issue since further health treatment depends on them.
With recent developments in technology, new medical devices
and new ways of monitoring and acquisition of physiological
information emerge. So, not only medicals but also biomedical
engineers must be prepared and aware of the characteristics and
requirements needed. Following this tendency, this paper
describes the developments of a remote lab for the study of
biomedical and physiological systems in undergraduate and
graduate level. The remote acquisition of ECG and body
acceleration data was the experiments performed and evaluated
by a group of biomedical engineering students. The experiments
were conducted according to a protocol designed for the
physiological data acquisition task. A pre and post questionnaires
were applied to a group of students to obtain qualitative and
quantitative evaluation to validate the remote experiment. The
first results show a very positive attitude of the graduate
students, motivating for further developments in this area.
Keywords— Biomedical engineering education; Perceptions;
Physiological acquisition systems; Remote lab
I. INTRODUCTION
The laboratory practice is essential in the engineering
education experience. Over the past years, many distance-
learning applications have been developed, and this is mainly
due to the continuous technological evolution [1, 2].
In traditional laboratories, students physically interact with
devices/equipment to obtain experimental data. This
experience allows the hands-on work, leading students acquire
their own skills and to support the theory. The remote
laboratories should provide a similar learning experience or, at
least, as close as possible to the physical one. This kind of
laboratories allows the remote control of variables and devices’
This work is funded by FCT, Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology, under project PTDC/CPE-PEC/122329/2010.
978-1-4799-1221-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
parameters by students and it should integrate data acquisition
software. The great advantages of this new approach are the
anytime, anywhere access using a computer with Internet
connection, and the reduced costs associated with its
implementation [2, 3].
One of the greatest, if not the greatest, remote laboratories’
goals is to meet the same educational goals as the physical
experiments or, in other words, as the hands-on practicum [3,
4, 5]. With the development of the technology and with even
greater use of computers and computing capabilities available,
new challenges, new areas and opportunities emerge [6]. The
developments of remote labs are an important issue and turns
out to be a place where students can acquire practical skills
according to its main purpose [7]. Remote labs can be seen as
an important tool to complement learning/teaching traditional
classes and where students can remotely access, control a real
device and get real data [8]. However, the feedback of the
students on the use of remote labs as a relevant tool in their
learning is necessary.
Information about the learning method/style employed by
each student might be highly significant to recognize. This
knowledge may be applied to plan and implement new learning
strategies, capable of achieving that aim.
The learning style’s concept describes the individual
learning, taking into account the learner’s preferences. The
Kolb’s experiential learning theory is one of the best-known
educational theories in higher education. According to this
theory, new knowledge, skills or attitudes are achieved through
confrontation among some modes of experiential learning [9].
The model works on two levels or two learning activities,
perceiving and processing, and Kolb’s emphasize four distinct
learning styles (accommodating, diverging, assimilating and
converging) based on four learning stages. In this respect,
Kolb’s model is particularly elegant, providing an
understanding of individual learning styles and the explanation

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)
of a circle of experiential learning, which applies to all of us [9,
10]. A typical representation of the two Kolb’s learning
activities is based on two axes (Fig. 1): the horizontal axis
corresponds to the measurement of the processing activity, the
way how we approach a situation, ranging from the active
experimentation to the reflective observation; and the vertical
axis to the measurement of the perceiving activity by
distinguishing between the concrete experience and the abstract
conceptualization, quantifying our emotional response or our
thinking way. The learning styles are the combination of two
lines of the axes [10].
Fig. 1. Diagram illustrating the Kolb’s learning styles (adapted from [9]).
Teachers should ensure that activities are designed and
conducted to offer each learner the opportunity to engage
appropriately by the identification of the students learning
style. Furthermore, learners can learn more effectively by the
application of the learning cycle [9, 10].
A. Motivation
A wide range of remote learning application has been
developed in engineering and sciences areas such as physics,
biology, electronics, and mechanics [4]. Although a large
number of remote laboratories is associated with engineering,
the number is fairly small when searching the Bioengineering
area.
This paper describes an innovative remote laboratory for
biomedical engineering education, based on physiological
systems’ study. This new remote lab intends to, in an intuitive
way, provide the physiological signal remote acquisition from
the human body, being supported by theory for the fully
concepts understanding. It is designed for undergraduate and
graduate students and intends to be an auxiliary learning tool.
The paper also presents a pilot study conducted for the
evaluation of the first version of the remote lab and it was
performed with the participation of the target public, graduate
engineering students. At the current stage, the first pilot study
has been completed and the initial results are of great interest
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
revealing the engineering students’ perceptions of the remote
laboratory under development.
In the section II, it is described the developments,
objectives, architecture and the implementation of the remote
laboratory for biomedical studies. In section III, the purpose of
the study conducted on students is identified and the methods
used for the evaluation of some technical and educational
aspects described. In section IV, the results of the study
performed are presented and discussed. In the last section, final
consideration and future work discussed.
II. REMOTE LABORATORY PLATFORM
A. RePhyS Lab
The RePhyS (Remote Physiological Systems) Lab is an
innovative remote laboratory based on physiological data
acquisition. This new remote lab is aimed towards to
undergraduate and graduate biomedical engineering students,
since this course requires a huge knowledge of physiological
systems functioning and of the biosignals acquisition methods
[11]. The remote acquisition of physiological signals is
conducted using a small device, designed and built by Shimmer
Research™, called Bio Starter Kit®. This equipment allows
the wireless data capture from human body and is composed
for ECG (electrocardiogram), EMG (electromyogram), GSR
(galvanic skin resistance) and strain gauge sensors, could be
used in a range of applications for biomedical studies [12].
B. Architecture
The local computer, in the real laboratory, is connected to
the experimental device through Bluetooth (IEEE 02.15.1),
allowing the control and the configuration of the device as well
as enabling the transfer of physiological data (Fig. 2). With the
existence of a webcam in the laboratory it is possible the online
monitoring of the experience.
In the client side, the user interface is displayed in the web
browser and students are able to send commands through the
Internet. The lab server receives these commands, and then the
experience is performed on the real device [13].
Fig. 2. General architecture of RePhyS.
C. Prototype Implementation
The use of LabVIEW software is remarkable for the
development of web applications since it owns a web server,
which makes possible the experiences’ publication via Internet
[13]. Making use of the library of LabVIEW virtual
instruments provided by Shimmer™, an application for the
device control and configuration was developed.
The LabVIEW has the ability to develop Remote Panels by
the web publishing of the front panel, which enabled the
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)
development of the remote laboratory’s user interface. This
feature makes use of the suitable and efficient LabVIEW tool
(Web Publishing Tool) allowing the embedment of the
application’s front panel in an HTML document for the web
page, enabling the web server. Thus, the user can view and
remotely control the front panel [14].
The prototype of the new remote lab was available via the
project website, which contained the HTML document created
for the interface built in LabVIEW. The interface development
is also an important issue to be taken into consideration since it
can be more important than the objective reality of the remote
laboratory [4].
III. THE PILOT STUDY
A. Purpose of the study
This pilot study on the first prototype version of the
RePhyS Lab was performed in order to validate some
educational and technical features. The study will show the
importance of the remote laboratory developed for
physiological data acquisition and to evaluate issues such as the
utility, the usability, the students’ perceptions, and the
efficiency and effectiveness as a new learning tool.
Since this is a recent concept in biomedical engineering
area, especially in the physiological signals acquisition, is
crucial to know how receptive and motivated are the students
in relation to the usage of a remote laboratory to assist their
learning process. The students’ satisfaction was assessed by
their comfort and acceptance to the remote access experiment.
Therefore, the evaluation was conducted on graduate
students, who performed a remote experience using the online
platform developed. Before the experience, it was given a brief
explanation on what the experiment consisted, although has not
been provided a definition for remote laboratory. The
experiment was performed following a protocol, and the
objectives defined were evaluated through two questionnaires
distributed (one before the experiment and the second one at
the end).
B. Procedures and Requirements
The class of 14 students was divided into 7 groups. The
experiment was performed by each group of two students,
following the protocol designed for remote physiological
signals acquisition. This experiment took about 15 minutes, in
which the students were able to explore the online platform and
some of its functionalities. The Fig. 3 presents the remote lab’s
interface with the identification of the recommended steps that
must be followed to carry out the experiment (numbers from 1
to 5).
The protocol aimed the access to the online platform and
the remote connection to the real lab. The laboratory procedure
involved ECG and body acceleration values acquisition from a
subject/patient, who agreed to realize the experience, in a
distance local (the real lab) (Fig. 4 A). Students visualized and
analyzed the data to identify the different signal’s components
and to understand the behavior of these physiological signals in
response to various situations, in particular, to the body’s
movement. They had the possibility to change some device’s
parameters, such as the sampling rate. In Fig. 4 (B and C) are
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
presented two images of the students while conducting
procedure provided by the experiment.
Fig. 3. Remote lab’s main page interface, with the main steps to be taken
identification (numbers 1 to 5).
C. Questionaires
To obtain students’ opinions regarding the remote
laboratory experimentation, on the platform and procedures,
two questionnaires were developed. One questionnaire was
given to the students before the experiment (named Pre-
Questionnaire) and the other one delivered after
accomplishment of the experiment (named Post-
Questionnaire). The outcomes should be viewed as insights to
the effectiveness of remote laboratories, not as hard evidence
since a limited number of tests were performed. The
questionnaires were divided into several main parts allowing
the student characterization and the experimental evaluation.
Close, open and multiple choice responses, and the evaluation
of several statements were used to analyze students’
perspectives, feelings and knowledge before and after carrying
out the experiments. For the statements evaluation, five-level
Likert-scale was used to rank the students’ motivation,
satisfaction and knowledge about some important educational
issues. Follows a brief description of the two questionnaires
used.
1) Pre-questionnaire
The Pre-Questionnaire was given to students before their
first interaction with the remote lab platform. This survey had
the main objectives the knowledge of students’ perceptions
about remote laboratories and their experience with
physiological signals acquisition. The evaluation of their
motivation and expectations regarding the performance of a
remote experiment was also measured. Furthermore, this
questionnaire allowed obtaining the student’ perception in
relation to their own learning style, based on Kolb’s theory
[9, 10]. This factor is important, not only to understand the
kind of learning methodology the students used but also, and
more importantly, to understand if the platform or the lab
procedure is appropriate for the students’ learning process on
this specific subject. This could help to recognize the necessity
of devising and implementing new learning strategies to fulfill
students’ needs.
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)

Fig. 4. Learning styles diagram obtained (based on Kolb’s theory): 1st quadrant – diverging style; 2nd quadrant – accommodating style; 3rd quadrant –
converging style; 4th quadrant – assimilating style.

2) Post-questionnaire laboratory, while the remaining mentioned they have heard,

The Post-Questionnaire was given to students after the e.g., at the university or read about it on the Internet. No
remote experiment. In this survey, it was provided a definition students held a remote experiment.
of remote laboratory: Analyzing the pre-questionnaire responses, it transpires
that, as per learners’ perspectives, the majority of them (about
“The remote laboratory is a virtual space that enables the 57.1%) have a converging learning style, as shown in Fig. 5
access to physical laboratory equipment and the experiments’ (third quadrant, green markers). In process field, the students
performance through the Internet, allowing students to do the things in an active way and they have a more abstract
change/control parameters and to visualize the results in real- perception of the situations. Based on Kolb’s theory, this
time.” (Adapted from [4]). behavior is characteristic of engineers: they are motivated to
With this definition, the students were able to analyze their investigate how situations are processed, their strength is the
previous perception, and, simultaneously, they assimilated with practical application of ideas [10]. The instructional methods,
rigor this new concept of laboratory. such as the interaction, the hands-on, the lab’s work, or the
This questionnaire aimed the knowledge of students’ assisted computer training, are suitable for the students who
perceptions about remote laboratories and the evaluation of employ this kind of learning style [10]. This is an essential
their motivation and satisfaction after their experience with the aspect to take into account because it allows perceiving if the
remote lab platform. The previous ascertainment of how they tool is designed for the students subjected to the test.
were motivated to remotely control a device or how they were
interested in conducting a remote experiment, and the
comparison of those results with the motivation measurements
after the test performance, allowed the evaluation of both the
attractiveness of the new remote tool and the protocol.
The students’ answers allowed the analyses of technical
aspects and limitations of the interface as well as the evaluation
of physiological data remote acquisition and its usability in
their learning process. Moreover, it was identified the learning
style applied during the experiment performance, in accordance
with the students’ perspective. The students were also
interviewed to ascertain their point of view on the lab
experiments they conducted. All in all, the research team
verified, through this survey’ answers, if the study’s objectives
set out were achieved.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the quantitative and qualitative analyses of
the results of both questionnaires are discussed.
Fig. 5. Learning styles diagram obtained (based on Kolb’s theory): 1st
A. Participants Characterization quadrant – diverging style; 2nd quadrant – accommodating style; 3rd
quadrant – converging style; 4th quadrant – assimilating style.
The participants in this study (n=14) are students who
attend, for the first time, the fourth year of the Integrated
Master in Biomedical Engineering (IMBE), of School of B. Participants Insights about Remote Labs
Engineering, University of Minho (SEUM), Portugal. The Once the protocol and the laboratory intended the
average age is 21.6 years and 64.3% (9/14) of students are physiological signals capture, it was examined the group’s
female. Before their first contact with the RePhyS Lab, 71.4% experience in data acquisition. All students have already
of them asserted that they have never heard about this type of acquired physiological signals from the human body: 14.3% of

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)
them indicated that they performed it in an easy way, 78.6%
with a normal difficulty and 7.1% considered the acquisition
very difficult.
A group of two questions (Q1 and Q2) was asked in order
to know whether students realize the differences between the
traditional signals acquisition and the remote one, and if the
remote acquisition becomes less real, before (a) and after (b)
the experiment:
Q1a – Do you think there are differences between the
traditional and the remote signals acquisition?
Q2a – Do you think the remote acquisition can become less
real than the traditional one?
Q1b – After the remote experiment, do you think there were
differences from the traditional acquisition?
Q2b – After the remote experiment, do you think it was less
real than the traditional acquisition?
In Fig. 6 the results obtained are presented.
Fig. 6. Responses to the questions: Q1 – existence of differences between
remote and traditional signal acquisition a) before and b) after the
remote experiment performance; Q2 – lack of reality in remote
acquisition a) before and b) after the remote experiment performance.
When asked about the possible existence of differences
between traditional and remote acquisition, 64.3% thought that
the remote acquisition was different (Fig. 6 – Q1a) and 50%
asserted that the remote experiment could become less real
(Fig. 6 – Q2a). After their first experience with remote labs, the
participants have changed their point of view and 71.4%
realized that no differences between the both methods exist;
despite the results obtained, this change of opinion is not
statistically significant (W=24, p>0.05). The signals acquisition
was made with the same efficiency and students were able to
visualize the outcomes. Concerning to the experiment’s sense
of reality, the change in the opinion was statistically significant
after the experiment (W=0, p<0.05) and 11 students (78.6%)
considered the experience was not less real than the traditional
one, justifying with the achievement of similar results. Those
students, who stated to be different and less real than the
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
traditional acquisition, have difficulty or could not see the
electrodes placing, and consequently the fact of the experience
seems a simulation, contributes to that feedback. For the same
reason, 28.6% of the participants have not felt to remotely
control the device, unlike about 71.4% of them, who asserted
that the parameters configuration was the principal factor for
the positive feeling. Indeed, the real-time monitoring of the
experiment, through the image/video obtained from a webcam,
has become increasingly a crucial feature of a remote
laboratory. The visualization of the entire process is important
for students’ acquisition of knowledge and for the experiment’s
similarity with the hands-on one. For instance, in this case, the
electrodes placing or the movement detection of the person in
the real lab are interesting aspects to take into account when the
users are analyzing the signals acquisition’ s results.
The students’ motivation to control and interest to conduct
a remote experiment deserved a special highlight in this study.
Before the experiment, the analysis of students’ answers
showed that the majority (64.3%) of them were motivated and
interested. After the experience performance, the same
percentage of students motivated was observed, not present
statistically significant differences (W=7, p>0.05) compared to
their motivation before the contact with the tool. This is an
important achievement since the concept of remote lab had a
good impact on students. Another relevant outcome was the
understanding if the motivation’s results are dependent on the
gender. Based on the obtained results, this dependency is not
statistically significant (F(1)=1, >0.05).
Fig. 7. Learning styles engaged during the experiment by each student: 1st
quadrant – diverging style; 2nd quadrant – accommodating style; 3rd
quadrant – converging style; 4th quadrant – assimilating style.
The identification of the learning style engaged during the
experiment shows that 42.8% of the class presented a
converging style (third quadrant, green markers in Fig. 7),
while 28.6% presented an assimilating style and 28.6% a
diverging one (respectively, first and fourth quadrants, red and
yellow markers in Fig. 7).
The results obtained in the pre-questionnaire, when
compared with the general learning style of students, showed
some changes in learning activities, mainly in processing. The
Fig. 8 shows the differences between pre and post-
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)
questionnaires’ results of the both activities for each student (1
to 14): the process in pre and post-questionnaire (Proc_pre and
Proc_post, respectively); and the perception in pre and post-
questionnaire (Perc_pre and Perc_post, respectively). The level
1 of the diagram A corresponds to the active experimentation
and the level 6 to the reflective observation of the processing
activity. In the diagram B, the level 1 is the abstract
conceptualization and the level 6 is the concrete experience of
the perceiving activity.
The qualitative analysis of both diagrams allows the
understanding of the students’ behavior during the experiment
in another perspective. As shown in diagram B, the students’
perception of the experiment was an abstract conceptualization
(proximity of level 1). According to Kolb’s theory, they
analyzed and understood the situations and ideas in an
intellectual and logic way [10].
Fig. 8. Representation of Processing (A) and Perceiving (B) activities. The
Proc_pre is the general process activity and the Proc_post the same
parameter during the experiment; the Perc_pre is the general perceiving
of students and Perc_post the perception during the experiment.
In comparison with the students’ learning style, this result
was not significant. The diagram A presents a modest
enlargement of the ring, which leads to the conclusion that the
processing activity during the experiment consisted of a
reflective observation (proximity of level 6). This may be due
to the fact that the experiment followed a protocol with
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
sequential steps to be achieved by students. Since it was a
guided experience, with time limitation and less freedom to
explore more labs’ functionalities or to acquire another
biosignals, the students considered it a less active experiment.
However, the differences found were not statistically
significant (p>0.05), which can mean that the didactic strategy
designed into the remote laboratory development was
appropriated for the target public’s learning style, though it can
be improved and better adjusted to students’ behavior.
C. Experiment evaluation
The experimental design was a crucial step to develop a
learning strategy, as mentioned before, to capture the students’
attention and to make a positive impact on them. Above all, the
experiment was designed in order to evaluate as much features
as possible and the educational goals achievement.
The ECG and acceleration values acquisition were valuable
in so far as they ensured the assessment of the understanding,
the utility and the visualization of the signals. The majority of
the students, about 92.9%, understood the ECG acquisition and
they were able to identify the constituent waves of the signal,
during the data real-time visualization (Fig. 9). The
electrocardiogram was supported by theoretical concepts,
capable of being explored before or after the acquisition. This
functionality was not available for other biosignals, and it
permitted to know to what extent this support is important for
the signals' knowledge and experiment's understanding.
Fig. 9. Understanding of the three experiments performed.
When asked about the accelerometer experiment, the result
was not so consistent. In spite of 85.8% of the students have
been able to visualize the acceleration values’ capture around
the three orthogonal planes XYZ (Fig. 10), 50% of them did
not understand the acquisition (Fig. 9) and about 42.9% did not
understand its utility. Indeed, this was an expected result
because it was not available a theoretical support for it and this
signal’ acquisition is not commonly taught in this biomedical
engineering course’s disciplines. Therefore, once they did not
have the background information, their perception about this
experiment was negative.
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)
Another factor that may affect the understanding of the
experiments is the learning style employed during the
procedure, and consequently the learning strategy planned for
the remote lab. However, the learning style was not dependent
of the learning activities, neither of the process (F(1)=0.640,
p>0.05) nor of the perception (F(1)=0.371, p>0.05).
The electrodes placing in the person/patient, who
underwent the experience in the real lab, was also the target of
this evaluation. Due to fact that the network’s velocity has not
allowed the image data transferring over the Internet, the
students weren’t able to real-time monitoring the experiment,
making it difficult to see the electrodes placing. To overcome
this obstacle, the online platform contained a generic image of
the electrodes placing (Fig. 3). For this reason, the majority
(57.1%) of the participants answered that they could not
visualize this process (Fig. 10), although all students have
understood it (Fig. 9). The comprehension of the process was
also supported by the theory available on the interface, and
their extensive knowledge about the ECG signal acquisition
can justify the result obtained.
Fig. 10. Visualization of results of the three experiments performed.
Technical features were also evaluated by students,
attributing a classification in a 1 to 5 rating scale, where 1 is
“poor”, 2 is “insufficient”, 3 is “sufficient”, 4 is “good” and 5
is “very good”. Seven statements were divided into two groups:
(1) concerning to a general evaluation of the platform
(F1, intuitiveness; F2, platform user friendly; F3, effective
monitoring of results; F4, pleasant platform’s graphic
environment); and
(2) related to the performance of experiments (F5, easy to
access to the theoretical concepts of support; F6, real-time
acquisition; F7, remote configuration of the Shimmer kit’s
parameters).
In the Fig. 11 it is possible see the rating for these technical
features.
The graphic in Fig. 11, presents a very positive result. The
majority of the students rated the features F1 to F4 as “good”
(rate 4), which is a great achievement since the laboratory
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
design can contribute to the good acceptance of this new tool
and to increase students’ receptivity to its utilization.
Related to the performance of experiments, the easy access
to the theoretical concepts of support (F5) and the real-time
acquisition (F6) were considered “very good” (rate 5) by
57.1% of the participants, and the remote configuration of the
Shimmer kit’s parameters (F7) was rated as “good” (rate 4) by
half of the 14 students. An important feat is the fact that more
than 75% of the students had rated these features as “good” and
“very good” (rate ≥ 4), which can mean that the experiment
proposed was successfully conducted.
Fig. 11. Assessment of some technical features of the remote lab.
About 71.4% of students considered the remote lab a useful
tool. Their receptiveness to this new educational tool is
remarkable and is a great motivation for the development of
new remote applications in this area of knowledge and
learning. In general, the students’ opinion about this new
laboratory was very interesting:
“an innovative and useful tool”,
“easy to understand”,
“rewarding experience”,
“the learning of some concepts related to ECG made
easier”.
The students were asked for comments about all experience
in order to identify some aspects capable of being improved in
a near future. The majority of them identify the missing of the
remote real-time visualization of the physical experiment as the
main fail. They also pointed out the lack of theoretical support
for the accelerometer experiment and the need of some
interface adjustments.
V. FINAL REMARKS
Data acquisition of physiological signals has been a very
important issue since, depending on their values different
health treatment will be given. With recent developments in
technology, new medical devices and new ways of monitoring
and acquisition of physiological information emerge. From the
point of view of higher education level, same opportunities
must be given preparing the engineering students before
entering the labor market. Following this drift, this paper
 2013 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)
described the developments of a remote lab for the study of
biomedical and physiological systems in undergraduate and
graduate level. The remote acquisition of ECG and body
acceleration data was the experiments performed and evaluated
by a group of 14 students of the fourth year of biomedical
engineer course.
The protocol for the physiological data acquisition task was
designed and evaluated, and a pre and post questionnaires were
applied to obtain qualitative and quantitative evaluation
validating the remote experiment.
The first insights on remote acquisition of ECG and body
acceleration data were very positive showing a strong interest
by students in this practical way of knowledge transmission.
The strategy designed in the remote laboratory development
was appropriated for the target public’s learning style
(converging learning style). New experiments are under
development trying to meet some of the suggestions in this
request.
The only less positive issue pointed out by students, the
real-time monitoring of the experiment, through the
image/video, must also study and news alternatives studied in
order to overcome the identified problem. The real time image
of the experiment is a crucial feature of a remote laboratory.
In essence, the purpose of this pilot study was
accomplished. The fact that the RePhyS lab be regarded as a
useful learning tool, the students’ motivation and interest, and
the positive results achieved are very motivating for the
development of future applications, concerning to remote
laboratories for biomedical engineering education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to the Portuguese Foundation for
Science and Technology (FCT) for funding through the R&D
project PTDC/CPE-PEC/122329/2010, and to all the students
for their voluntary cooperation and help in the evaluation of the
remote lab experiments.
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO. Downloaded on September 22,2021 at 11:51:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
REFERENCES
[1] A. C. Ammari and J. B. H. Slama, “The Development of a Remote
Laboratory for Internet-Based Engineering Education,” Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 10, no. 4, 2006.
[2] L. Gomes, S. Member, and S. Bogosyan, “Current Trends in Remote
Laboratories,” vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 4744–4756, 2009.
[3] J. G. Zubía and G. R. Alves, Using Remote Labs in Education: Two
Little Ducks in Remote Experimentation. Universidad de Deusto, 2012.
[4] J. Ma and J. V Nickerson, “Hands-on, simulated, and remote
laboratories: A comparative literature review,” ACM Comput. Surv.,
vol. 38, no. 3, 2006.
[5] L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa, “The Role of the Laboratory in
Undergraduate Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering
Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 121–130, Jan. 2005.
[6] M. R. Neuman and Y. Kim, “The undergraduate biomedical engineering
curriculum: devices and instruments.,” Annals of biomedical
engineering, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 226–31, Feb. 2006.
[7] D. Popescu and B. Odbert, “The Advantages Of Remote Labs In
Engineering Education,” Educator’s Corner, pp. 1–10, 2011.
[8] D. Shapiro, “Remote iLabs Provide Real-World Experience,” NSTA
Reports, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=59475. [Accessed:
10-Jun-2013].
[9] A. Y. Kolb and D. A. Kolb, “The Kolb learning style inventory–version
3.1 2005 technical specifications,” 2005.
[10] D. Kolb, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development, no. 1984. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
[11] J. D. Bronzino and D. R. Peterson, The Biomedical Engineering
Handbook. Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.
[12] “Shimmer Research,” 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.shimmer-
research.com/.
[13] M. P. Kazmierkowski and M. Liserre, “Advances on Remote
Laboratories and e-Learning Experiences (Gomes, L. and Garcia-Zubia,
J., Eds.) [Book News],” Industrial Electronics Magazine, IEEE, vol. 2,
no. 2, pp. 45–46, 2008.
[14] Orduna, J. Garcia-Zubia, L. Rodriguez-Gil, J. Irurzun, I. Lopez de,
x00F, D. A, and F. Gazzola, “Using LabVIEW remote panel in remote
laboratories: Advantages and disadvantages,” in Global Engineering
Education Conference (EDUCON), 2012 IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–7.