DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL

ENGINEERING

BME 499
FINAL DESIGN REPORT
LADDER TO RECOVERY LTD.

STEP DETECTOR FOR STROKE

MEASUREMENT IN MICE

July 31, 2015

GROUP 2:
SARAH WONG V00772780
SAM POLLOCK V00722695
MICHAEL PEIRONE V00732725
ALEXANDER BURDEN V00729892

Summary
The ability to perform simple, everyday tasks, such as tying a shoelace or buttoning a
shirt, are often lost after experiencing a stroke. The Brown lab at the University of
Victoria dedicates their research to understanding what happens to the brain after a
stroke, allowing them to devise intelligent strategies to help stroke patients recover
some motor functions and achieve a higher quality of living. Mice and rats are
commonly used to model the effects of strokes because they display similar poststroke motor deficits to humans. Strokes are induced in a specific motor part of the
brain, which leads to subtle defects in how well the rodent uses its left forepaw. This
project targets the challenge of quantifying these subtle defects in the sensory-motor
function of the affected paw. The testing system features a horizontal ladder with
rungs spaced 1-2 cm apart, and the placement of the affected paw on each rung of the
ladder will be measured to determine stroke severity. The rungs of the ladder are
wired to act as sensors such that a complete grasp results in the completion of two
circuits, while a partial grasp results in the completion of only one circuit. Healthy
rodents are expected to display mostly full grasps, whereas those with induced strokes
are expected to show a higher ratio of partial grasps to full grasps. The grasp results
from each trial are displayed in table format on a screen connected to the testing
system.

Table of Contents
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.0
1.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4
The Brown Lab ......................................................................................................... 4

2.0

Need and Goal Statement ........................................................................................... 5

3.0

Project Specifications, Deliverables, and Scope ....................................................... 5

4.0

Existing Solutions and Design Alternatives ............................................................. 6

4.1

Capacitive Touch ...................................................................................................... 6

4.2

Force Detection ........................................................................................................ 7

4.3

Cantilever Beams ...................................................................................................... 8

5.0

Design Process ............................................................................................................. 9

6.0

Detailed Design Description .................................................................................... 13

6.1

Structural Components .......................................................................................... 13

6.2

Software Components ........................................................................................... 14

6.3

Electrical Components .......................................................................................... 15

7.0

Project Work Plan and Timeline .............................................................................. 16

8.0

Testing ......................................................................................................................... 19

9.0

Company Background ............................................................................................... 21

10.0

Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................... 22

11.0

Appendix A: Project Finances .............................................................................. 24

12.0

Appendix B: Solidworks Drawings ...................................................................... 25

13.0

Appendix C: Project Progress Reports ................................................................ 28

1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this project is to design a method of determining the presence and
severity of strokes in laboratory mice. To accomplish this, a horizontal ladder with the
ability to detect the paw position of a mouse was developed. As part of stroke
treatment research, a mouse is encouraged to walk across the ladder and grasp two
millimeter rungs with its paws. A mouse with a stroke does not have the ability to
fully grasp the rungs due to sensory-motor deficits in one or more paws. Mice without
strokes are able to completely wrap their paws around the rung.
A new method of detecting the manner in which the mouse grasps the ladder rungs
must be developed, as the current method requires a substantial number of manhours to review a captured video of the test frame-by-frame. The new method should
be able to instantly record the number of each type of grasp (full or partial) with a
microcontroller for easy and efficient analysis by lab technicians.
1.1 The Brown Lab
The Brown Lab at UVic, headed by Dr. Craig Brown, studies brain plasticity to
examine changes in the brain. Research with mice is performed to determine how the
brain is affected structurally and functionally after experiencing a stroke. The brains of
mice that experience strokes are imaged by fluorescence-based techniques to track
changes to the brain. Dr. Brown and his associates also use this imaging to view how
the mice encode new information. By knowing the pathways in the brain that are
affected by a stroke strategies to repair the brain can be devised and tested. Before a
stroke mice are trained to walk across a horizontal ladder with rungs less than two
millimeters in diameter. Mice will walk differently across the ladder before and after a
stroke; a mouse after a stroke cannot properly grasp the rung and will instead only
place their paw on top of the rung. The difficulty a mouse has in grasping the rungs
can be related to the severity of the stroke; the more often a mouse fails to fully grasp
a rung the worse the stroke is. By having the mice walk across the ladder several times
over a number of weeks the rate of recovery that the mouse exhibits can be
determined.

2.0 Need and Goal Statement

Need: Current mouse step ladders do not detect paw grips and require human
interaction to measure mouse movement, a process which can take several hours per
test.
Goal: Design a mouse step ladder that is able to automatically detect mouse paw grips
and removes the need for extensive human review of the data.

3.0 Project Specifications, Deliverables, and Scope

Ladder to Recovery Ltd. was responsible for developing a full mouse stroke detection
system complete with a bridge structure, rungs, and displayed output. Two options
were available, either an existing bridge structure could be converted for use with the
teams design or a new bridge could be constructed from scratch.
The mouse step detector was developed based upon a set of specifications given by
the Brown Lab. The specifications were as follows:
The ladder height, width, and length must be approximately 18, 24, and 4
inches, respectively
The rungs must be within a 3-millimetre diameter and 2.5-3 inches in length
The rungs must be made of a material with approximately the same coefficient
of friction as aluminum
The testing system must not frighten the test mice (ie noise, flashing lights)
The testing system must be able to withstand chemical damage due to mice
urine or feces
The testing system must be usable by trained or untrained lab technicians
The testing system must be able to differentiate between right and left grasps
The testing system must be able to differentiate between full and partial grasps
The testing system must display the number of full and partial grasps upon trial
completion
It must be possible for the lab technician to see the mouse at all times in the
testing system during trials
The walking section of the testing system must be raised to allow for a camera
to be run underneath the mouse during trials

In addition, Ladder to Recovery Ltd. compiled a list of supplementary design

specifications believed to contribute to overall project quality:
The testing system must be lightweight and portable
The testing system must be durable and sturdy
These specifications were used as a guide when choosing between design alternatives
and when developing the final chosen design.

4.0 Existing Solutions and Design Alternatives

The current approach used by the Brown Lab uses a video camera that is moved
below the mouse to record its walk across the ladder. The camera is generally moved
by a laboratory worker by pushing it on a cart so that it is directly below the mouse at
all times. This video is then be reviewed frame-by-frame to determine how the mouse
was grasping the ladder rungs, and the laboratory worker keeps track of the number
of times the mouse fully grasps the rungs and the number of times the mouse is not
able to properly grasp the rung. By carrying out this procedure multiple times over a
period of several weeks the rehabilitation progress of a given mouse can be tracked.
Aside from the chosen solution, several potential methods of quantifying the mouses
step patterns were considered. Some alternatives, such as capacitive touch sensing and
force sensing, require multiple sensors on each rung. Another potential design using
image processing would function similarly to the current approach used by the Brown
Lab, however a computer would replace the technician for reviewing the captured
video.
4.1 Capacitive Touch
The capacitive touch sensor method uses analog sensing as opposed to the digital
sensing that was used in the final design. Somewhat similar to the final design, a pair
of enamel coated wires (one for each side) are laid atop the metal rung. The rung itself
is connected to a 5-volt input and the two wires are grounded. As a mouse stands on
top of the rung, forcing the wire closer to the rung, the output voltage would fluctuate
as a function of how close the wire is to the metal rung. The microcontroller then
detects this change as an analog input and software would determine how strong the
grasp was. A strong (full) grasp would theoretically push the wire closer to the rung
and thus a larger voltage drop would occur.
A difficult, yet attainable, requirement of this design is the amplification of the input
6

signal. Mice are very lightweight, so the displacement difference (and respective
voltage change) between a strong and weak grasp would be minimal. An amplification
circuit using operation amplifiers would have to be implemented to boost the input
signal, so that an appreciable difference in voltages can be seen. The additional
amplification circuit on each sensor limits the number of sensors that could be made,
due to both time and budget constraints.
Capacitive sensing was briefly tested and a substantial noise component in the signal
was noted, additionally the function relating the force upon the wire to the output
voltage was not entirely reliable. Mice are especially unpredictable, so this problem
may have been even more severe in application. Because of this, and the time and
budget constraints previously mentioned, this approach was not pursued
4.2 Force Detection
Mouse step detection using force sensors is a technique that can be quite costly and
may not produce sought after results. However, force sensors have seen some use in
literature (see work by G. Cavallo, D. Campolo, F. Keller, and E. Guglielmelli). Thus,
the method was briefly considered.
Similar to the capacitive method mentioned above, the force detection approach
measures how much force the mouse is applying as it steps. As the sensor directly
measures the force, there is no issue of relating output voltage to grasp strength.
Unfortunately, this method has two prominent issues, specifically data collection and
price. Currently, many researchers use the ladder because they can see exactly how the
mouse grasps a rung and then gather quantitative data from that. Using force
detection, researchers would need to collect more evidence and create new
assumptions for the relationship between stroke recovery and force distribution of
mice movement, which unlike the current approach is a field with relatively little
research. The cost of a device that uses force detection can also be very expensive. A
very sensitive sensor is needed because mice only weigh 20-30 grams. After some
research, force sensors found on digikey.ca cost $48 when ordered in bulk or $134
individually. Therefore, following the design constraint of a horizontal ladder design
would be prohibitively costing due to the number of sensors required. While the
Brown Lab was willing to provide funding for the project, this approach would have
required a drastic departure from their current approach to stroke detection with no
guarantees of functionality. Thus, this design was not pursued.
7

4.3 Cantilever Beams

Cantilever beams are rigid structures that are supported on one end and free floating
on the other. They are able to maintain their shape after repeated stressing and will
elastically deform in a known manner within a certain range. The intended approach
with cantilever beams was to have rung sensors that maintained their structural
integrity throughout many tests.
The design of the cantilever sensor includes a metal rung with 2 cantilever
beams hanging about 1 millimeter above the rung and 2 beams 1 millimeter to the
side of the rung, as shown in Figure 1. There are 4 beams all together to differentiate
between the left and right paws. The beams are grounded and the rungs are connected
to power. As the mouse steps on a rung, it will touch the beam to the rung,
completing a circuit, which can be recorder with a microcontroller. If it just steps on
the top beam, then it is a partial grasp, if it steps on both the stop and side beams,
then it is a full grasp.

Figure 1: Cantilever beam design. Cantilever beams are in blue

This was a very feasible alternative; so a few days were spent constructing initial
prototypes. The cantilever beams were assembled from hair clips and sanded down so
that only the metal remained. They were separated from the rung by heat shrink and
then fixed using another layer of heat shrink with some glue. Wires were wrapped
around and glued to each beam so that it could connect to a microcontroller.
After all 4 cantilevers were fixed to the beam, it was apparent that this alternative
would be less viable than initial expected. Altogether with the metal rung and the 4
cantilever beams, the sensor was about 5 millimeters in diameter. The beams and rung
would need to be substantially scaled down to around 2 millimeters in diameter for
the mouse to be able to grasp it in the proper manner.
8

While this alternative show promise, it was simply too big for the mice. Given that
there was no manner in which the size of the sensor could be reduced without
specialize manufacturing processes, the design was not pursued.

5.0 Design Process

After considering the above alternatives, a custom design rung was chosen as the
optimal sensing method in order to balance sensitivity with cost. Each custom rung is
essentially a set of digital sensors that together detect the difference between a full
grasp and partial grasp of a mouses paw, for the left and right side separately. This is
done by providing voltage to the central metallic rung (stainless steel doweling) and
then having two grounded wires lain approximately one millimeter above and below
the rung, with heat-shrink layers holding the wires in place. Refer to Figure 2 for the
exact layout. A partial grasp of the rung would result in the mouse pressing just the
top wire against the top of the rung, whereas a full grasp would push the bottom wire
against the rung as well. As Figure 2 illustrates, there are two rungs per step, with an
air gap in between. The purpose of this is to allow the system to differentiate between
a left and right paw grasp.

Figure 2: Initial rung design with a gap in the middle

A more efficient iteration was then developed. Instead of having two separate rungs
per step, one rung was made with the four wires insulated from one another at the
center. The rung functioned the same, except only a single rung needed to be
constructed for each step. This cuts the time it takes to construct the rungs nearly by
half, while also ensuring that the two sides are aligned and stable since only one solid
piece of metal doweling is used, instead of two. See Figure 3 for the exact structure.
In theory, this design was quite effective, however in practice the manufacturing
process was incredibly difficult. Heat shrink was used to separate the wire from the
9

rung, and then a second layer of heat shrink secured each wire in place. The primary
difficulty in assembly presented itself when trying to connect the 4 wires in the
middle. The rung diameter is 1.6 mm and the wire is approximately 40 gauge. The
small size and delicate nature of the wire made the assembly of even a single rung a
very time intensive measure with a poor success rate. It was crucial that the wires were
oriented in the exact same positions (top and bottom) for each rung so that there
would be no variation in results from sensor to sensor. After many frustrating
attempts at securing the wires in place, a new design had to be implemented.

Figure 3: Second rung design with one solid metal doweling

The next design iteration used magnet wire for the sensors as it features a very thin
enamel layer around the copper that provides a great deal of strength in addition to its
insulating properties. The two top wires and bottom wire pairs of each rung can be
tied together in the middle while remaining insulated from each other. The central
part of the wire, which makes contact with the rung, can be sanded to expose the
copper so it still functions properly. Manufacturing was much easier as essentially only
two wires need to be properly oriented on the rung, instead of four. It should be
noted that one additional wire is wrapped around the rung to connect it with power,
however the orientation of this wire has no effect on the final design. Figure 4 shows
this design concept.

Figure 4: Illustration: side view of final rung design with wires tied in the middle. Note, the tie is exaggerated
and in reality is much smaller to allow a layer of heat shrink to secure it over top.

10

Figure 5: Manufactured rung prototype.

Figure 4 was the final rung sensor design because it allowed for proper wire
orientation precision with relatively quick manufacturing. The only design change
made following the adoption of magnet wire was changing the two wires orientation
to 90 apart from each other, instead of 180. This is because the mouse was rarely
able to grasp the bottom wire, but the Brown Lab still considers a grasp as correct if
the mouses paw wraps around to the front side of a rung.
The next step in the design process was to choose a manner in which to connect 18
of the sensor rungs to a microcontroller. As seen in Figure 4, there are 5 leads for a
single rung, so there would be 18 x 5 = 90 leads in the final ladder that need
connection to the microcontroller. The solution was to implement copper trace panels
on either side of the ladder. The copper traces would be made up of a group of wires
that simply run alongside the ladder. The wires from the rungs can then connect
directly to the copper trace, which then leads to the microcontroller. Some wiring
could be reduced by connecting all the power leads to a single wire on the traces,
removing 18 wires from the total. This would clean up the wiring substantially,
however, 82 wires remained that needed to connect to the microcontroller. During
testing, it was noticed that a mouse only spanned a maximum of five rungs when
walking across the ladder. Therefore, it could only possibly set off rungs that were a
maximum of five spaces away from each other. To reduce the number of
connections, the 18 rungs were broken up into 3 groups of 6. This means that rung
#1 would have the same connections as rung #7 and rung #13, and rung #2 would
have the same connection as rung #8 and rung # 14, etc. All together, the number of
connecting wires was reduced to 25 ((4 wires x 6 rungs in a group) +1 power line),
which is almost a quarter of what was needed originally. The 25 copper trace lines
then connect to the microcontroller for signal collection and management.

11

Figure 6: Final ladder with copper trace panels on the side. Each rung connects to a particular copper trace
wire

The microcontroller gathers input from each rung and outputs the total number of
full grasps and the total number of partial grasps onto an LCD screen. The original
goal of the project was to differentiate between all four paws and have a distinct grasp
total for each, which is why the rungs were separated in the middle. However, due to
time constraints, this was not implemented. Thus, in the final prototype only the total
number of partial grasps and total number of full grasps is displayed. If time
permitted, the next step in the design process would be to refine the algorithm so that
it could determine which paw activated a sensor and assign the result accordingly.
The structure of the ladder is for the most part the same functionally as a ladder the
Brown Lab was using previously, however the construction was far sturdier and more
stable. The only difference functionally is that the new ladder has two additional
Plexiglas panels attached to hinges to hold the copper trace wires. The hinges allow
the researcher to lift up the panel without breaking the sensor connections so that a
webcam can be run underneath the bridge for data collection in the traditional
manner. While the new ladder was based upon the previous model, several design
modifications were carried out. This was to ensure the new design followed the new
12

design specifications of the Brown Lab discussed above. However, these

modifications were completed in a single design iteration, and the final constructed
ladder closely follows the design seen in Appendix B with no major deviations.

6.0 Detailed Design Description

The following sections outline the details of the major structural, software, and
electrical design components of the mouse step detector.
6.1 Structural Components

Figure 7: SolidWorks depiction of ladder structure

The bridge frame is composed of aluminum L-brackets with Plexiglas walls.

SolidWorks was used to design the components based on the existing ladder structure
provided by the Brown Lab. However, a few changes were made to the existing
structure. The height of the ladder trough in which the mice moved was reduced to
allow the lab technicians to have better access to the mice while testing, both to
ensure that they moved across the ladder quickly and so that the mice could be easily
removed from the ladder after testing. The individual parts of the ladder were
carefully machined in the University of Victoria machine lab to allow for accurate
assembly, whereas the original ladder parts had been made with rough measurements.
The height, width, and length of the ladder are 20, 24, and 4 inches, respectively.
Aluminum was chosen as a material for the bridge frame as it is lightweight, durable,
and sturdy. Plexiglas was chosen as wall material since it mirrors the properties of
13

aluminum, while also being transparent so that the lab technicians can see the mouse
through it. The rungs are raised to allow the researchers to move a camera beneath
the ladder for grasp verification via the traditional method.

Figure 8: The final ladder structure

6.2 Software Components

The core of the mouse step detection is an Arduino Mega microcontroller. This
device receives inputs from all 18 rungs, with four sensors each. To minimize port
requirements without causing uncertainty regarding the mouses location, there are
three sets of six rungs being fed into the microcontroller as one set of 24 sensors. If
time had permitted, this would allowed for the algorithm to differentiate between
sensor events triggered by the front and back paws for each side of the ladder, so that
results could have been divided on a per-paw basis. In order to output data in realtime as the mouse moves along the ladder, a 16-character LCD screen is connected to
the microcontroller as well. This displays the current counts of both the partial and
full grasps.

14

Figure 9: Testing system microcontroller and display

The algorithm used in the final prototype uses polling and the system timer to
determine grasp type. All of the sensors on the tops of the rungs are polled
continuously. When a sensor is triggered its corresponding bottom sensor is also
polled. As long as the top sensor is held a counter is incremented, a second counter is
incremented if the bottom sensor is also being held. Once the mouse releases the
sensor entirely, these counters are compared. If the bottom sensor was active for a
certain percentage of the time the top sensor was triggered, the system registers a full
grasp. Otherwise, a partial grasp is flagged.
6.3 Electrical Components
The rungs of the ladder are designed to differentiate between mice grasps. The rungs
have this ability due to their sensor capability. Sensor wires run approximately one
millimeter above the length of the rung, situated 90 degrees radially apart from each
other. An additional wire is connected directly to the rung to provide constant power
from the microcontroller. The sensor wires were made by removing the enamel
insulation on magnet wire in certain locations to allow for direct contact with the
rung. When the mouse steps on a rung, either one or both of the sensor wires come
in contact with the main power rung completing either one or two circuits depending
on what type of grasp the mouse makes. There are five wires for each rung: four wires
to distinguish between the left and right paws and between the top and bottom of the
rung, and one power wire. When only one circuit is completed for a specific foot, a
15

partial grasp is registered and displayed as a Bad Grasp. When both circuits are
completed for a specific foot, a full grasp is registered and displayed as a Good
Grasp.

Figure 10: Sensor rung

There are twelve wires running horizontally across the length of the ladder to which
the wires from each rung may be attached. This segments the rungs into three groups,
where all rungs within a group have unique inputs to the microcontroller. This limits
the number of wires without risking information overlap from a mouse triggering two
sensors sharing the same inputs.

Figure 11: Sensor rungs installed in the ladder

7.0 Project Work Plan and Timeline

The design of the mouse ladder is focused upon the custom rung sensors, and the
microcontroller required to manage the signals from each rung. Through the project
there were six major milestones to complete in order to create a fully functional stroke
16

detection system: the prototyping, initial testing, construction, algorithm design, final
accuracy testing, and output system design.
At the beginning of the project an initial rung design was manufactured to determine
if the idea was feasible. This involved powering a metal beam and using duct tape to
separate the wire from the beam, as shown in Figure 12. The outputs were connected
to a breadboard with an LED and resistor in series. When the wires touched the metal
beam the LED went on and it was determined that the design could work to detect
the step patterns of the mice. Following this the design was scaled down to use a 1.5
mm diameter rung and much smaller wires. This ensures the mice actually need to
grasp the rungs to not fall, with larger rungs they would be able to stand atop the
rungs without making an effort to grasp them.

Figure 22: Initial test prototype

The final rung design consists of two pairs of wires on the top and bottom of a
copper rung, attached with heat-shrink at the ends and center. The wire used has an
enamel coating that insulates the wire to prevent it from being triggered unless the
mouse directly completes the circuit. To fabricate the rungs the enamel coating must
be removed in short segments with sandpaper. This exposed wire will conduct
electricity from the powered rung to the microcontroller. The wire which was used
before did not have an enamel coating and the rungs were more susceptible to being
falsely triggered. The placement of the wires on the rung was redesigned because the
mice were not able to trigger the bottom wire. Originally the wires were 180 degrees
apart, but after testing with mice they were moved closer together.
The original design of the ladder was based off of a ladder provided by the Brown
Lab at UVic. When performing initial testing of the rung design the provided ladder
was used, but a new ladder was manufactured to accommodate the new rungs. Many
17

wires were hanging off the side of the ladder and a panel had to be added to clean this
up. The wires run the length of the ladder can go directly to the microcontroller at the
end.
At the same time as the construction of the rungs, the code from the microcontroller
was written to manage the input from the rungs. The initial code was written to light
an LED when one of the rungs was triggered. This was done to ensure the
microcontroller could take inputs from multiple rungs at a time. As microcontrollers
have only a limited number of ports, each port was to accept inputs from multiple
rungs spaced far apart. Near the end of the project the code was re-written to accept
the multiple inputs and determine the number of good grasps and bad grasps. An
LCD screen was used to show the number of full grasps and partial grasps.
Task

June 1

June 8

June 15

June 22

June 29

July 6

July 13

July 20

July 27

Prototyping
Initial Testing
Modifications /
re-testing
Rung Construction
Core Software Design
Assembly
Full Apparatus Testing
Modifications
Output Method Design
Final Testing

Table 1: Gantt Chart of Project

Testing was done throughout the project to ensure the design upgrades worked. In
some of the tests the outputs from the ladder did not give the desired results and a
portion of the rung or the code had to be redesigned. One example of this was when
a mouse walked across the ladder and was only outputting Bad Grasps and no Good
Grasps. The orientation of the rungs was changed and more testing was done. This
resulted in more Good Grasps.
The Gantt chart shown in Table 1 outlines the project plan and the expected
completion date. This was followed very closely when designing and assembling the
18

bridge, and testing the design. Rung construction was completed throughout the
project because changes were made to the design, and some of the rungs did not
work. This ensured the rungs were in full working condition at each stage of testing.

Sarah

Sam

Alex

Michael

Design and
fabrication of
modified sensor
rungs

Sensor design and

implementation

Microcontroller electrical
design and port
management

Design and
fabrication of
modified sensor
rungs

Design and
fabrication of ladder
system

Graphic user
interface design

Microcontroller Software
design

Design and
fabrication of ladder
system

Table 2: Division of tasks between group members

8.0 Testing
In order to validate the ladder design, extensive testing was carried out at various
stages of the projects development. Aside from validation checks during
manufacturing, testing was primarily carried out in the Brown Lab at the University of
Victoria, using live mice made available by the lab personnel. As of the start of this
project, the Brown Lab had pre-existing animal rights guidelines and codes for testing
their mice on horizontal ladders for stroke severity determination via the video
capture method described previously. Thus, it was determined that as long as all
handling of the Brown Labs mice was done by lab personnel, no additional animal
rights guidelines or regulations would need to be drafted.
Live animal testing was conducted at each stage of project completion. The mice used
in all testing were healthy, un-stroked mice, trained by the Brown Lab to cross a
horizontal ladder in order to collect data in the traditional manner. Testing consisted
of having a single mouse cross the ladder repeatedly, with the team observing the
electrical or software output as the mouse crossed the sensors. Three distinct rounds
of animal testing occurred, each with a specific validation goal in mind. The first
round was to ensure that the digital sensor concept was valid using only a few rungs.
The second was to validate the newly constructed ladder and expand the number of
rungs under test by using a microcontroller to log the outputs. The final round of
19

testing was to confirm the performance of the entire ladder system, including
microcontroller software.
Initial testing was conducted in late May 2015. After the first prototype sensors were
developed, the concept was validated using ad-hoc testing by pressing on the sensors
to confirm that the circuit completed in a reliable fashion. Once the sensor design was
miniaturized to adhere to the design restrictions, a single prototype rung was tested by
placing it in an obsolete ladder provided by the Brown Lab. Over the course of late
May to early June, the rung materials were iterated on to further miniaturize the rungs
and improve the speed of the manufacturing process. One to three sample rungs were
tested following the iteration process to reconfirm functionality. The sensor leads
were connected in series with a 5 volt power source, a resistor, and an LED to
indicate when the sensor was triggered. By early June, the construction of the new
ladder design was nearing completion, thus the second round of testing began.
Once the new ladder was built, the next stage of live testing could commence. The
key goal of these tests were to determine what effect, if any, the use of the new ladder
had on the sensing ability of the rungs. Additionally, the LEDs used in the first stage
were replaced with an Arduino microcontroller that ran a simple polling program,
when a sensor activation was detected it would output this to an attached laptop.
Using this approach would inform the team if the polling time of the microcontroller
would interfere with the data acquisition.
The final tests carried out at the Brown Lab occurred in late July, and were intended
to validate the entire prototype structure. The final design put through testing had 16
sensing rungs on the custom-built ladder, and used an Arduino Mega microcontroller
to poll the sensors and display the results on an LCD screen. These tests confirmed
the functionality of the design and the proper operation of the microcontroller
software, while also highlighting several broken sensor rungs that were not operating
properly.

20

9.0 Company Background

Our team, Ladder to Recovery, is made up of 4 biomedical engineering undergraduate
students from the University of Victoria. Our goal as a company is to produce
biomedical devices for research laboratories that combine high functionality with
affordability. The mouse step detector project exemplifies this by providing an
alternative to both the time-intensive manual method of step measurement, as well as
currently available automated systems which cost thousands of dollars.
Sarah Wong - 3rd year BME (MECH Stream)
Sarah overlooks the entire design process and is involved with
sensor manufacturing ladder design streamlining and
ergonomics.
Contact: smwong@uvic.ca

Alex Burden - 4th year BME (ELEC Stream)

Alex is in charge of designing the Arduino setup and
software design associated with input processing and output
display of the sensor information.
Contact: aburden@uvic.ca

Michael Peirone - 4th year BME (MECH Stream)

Michael takes care of the material and design manufacturing
of the sensor and ladder.
Contact: peirone1@uvic.ca

21

Sam Pollock - 4th Year BME (ELEC Stream)

Sam is involved in the sensor design and circuit
implementation for detecting the mouse grasp.
Contact: spollock@uvic.ca

10.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The goal of this project was to create a system that could detect the difference in
stepping pattern between mice with and without strokes. The purpose of such as
system is to aid in stroke treatment research, by quantifying the rate at which mice
recover from a stroke, different treatment methods can be compared and their effects
on recovery can be determined. Several possible designs were considered, including
capacitive touch sensors, force detection, and cantilever beams sensors. The selected
solution was to use custom built digital touch sensors since it allowed for small,
inexpensive sensors that were relatively easy to manufacture. Working with mice
required patience and understanding. The project had to be quiet, safe, and cleanable
due to mouse defecation and urination. This was in addition to hardware constraints
imposed by the sensor design. The solution was to use magnet wire, with the enamel
stripped in the sensing region, overlaid on a metal rung connected to power. When
the mouse grasped the rung the wire would contact the rung, completing a circuit and
allowing for an easily detected voltage drop. However, the project did encounter
problems using this approach. Most importantly, it was found that the wires deformed
after repeated use. Additionally, having a wire deformed so that it contacted the rung
without a mouse being present caused that rung, and any in series with it, to become
nonfunctional. The manner in which this was combatted was to manually adjust the
wires to a non-contacting position, however this did not solve the underlying issues
and would not be appropriate for a final product.
Recommendations for the future of this project include a better manufacturing
procedure or a new design alternative. The main cause for why the wires were
consistently becoming deformed is that the manufacturing process caused
inconsistencies regarding how well the wires were attached to the rung. The small
22

scale of these sensors made manufacturing by hand incredibly time consuming and
the final rungs had excessive variance. A new method needs to be implemented;
potentially the use of small jigs to orient the wires would result in better quality rungs.
Alternatively, two 3D printed end caps with holes for the wires could be used instead
of heat shrink, if a printer with sub-millimeter precision was available.
Alternatively, an entirely different approach could be used. A method based upon
computer vision processing instead of digital sensing could potentially have better
results. Image processing takes out the need for a researcher by analyzing the video of
a mouse walking across the ladder with software to determine what kind of grasp was
made for each step the mouse takes. This design alternative was first considered four
weeks prior to the project deadline, leaving too little time to consider implementation.
However, it was unanimously decided that if more time had been available, this
alternative would have resulted in a better step classification system.
One major benefit is that software of this type could be used with the original
ladder that researchers are using; the only change that would be necessary would be
how researchers record the videos. Currently the camera is moved underneath the
ladder, following the mouse as it steps across the ladder. For better image processing
results the video would need to be stationary.
The second benefit to an image processing approach is that there are limited material
requirements. Aside from the tools already in use at the Brown Lab (the ladder and
camera primarily), no additional parts are required.
As mentioned before, this alternate design would most likely have been
implemented if it were discovered earlier in the projects lifetime. This approach
mimics the current methodology used by the Brown Lab but moves the video analysis
from a technician to an algorithm. There is thus an added benefit consistency, on a
given input the system would always give the same result. Although the researchers
are specially trained to identify the different mouse step types, variance between
different researchers may still occur. A software program remove this variance and
provide a universal guideline of how the mice are stepping.

23

11.0 Appendix A: Project Finances

Part

Part Number

Arduino Mega
Microcontroller

Source
Amazon.caSainSmart

Unit price ($)

Quantity

Total Cost ($)

25.99

25.99

Aluminum Angle Bar

(1/8-1X1)

10064-0000000

General Metals
and Plastics

1.35/FT

12 FT

16.2

Plexiglas (1/8 thick)

10054-0000000

General Metals
and Plastics

3.57/SQFT

3.219
SQFT

11.49

Bolt (12-24 3/4)

91772A294

McMaster-Carr

6.34/100

20

1.268

Bolt (12-24 3/8)

91772A289

McMaster-Carr

8.34/50

0.668

Hex Nut

90257A038

McMaster-Carr

9.60/50

24

4.608

Washer

90107A012

McMaster-Carr

8.18/100

12

0.9816

Dowel Pin (Type 416

Stainless Steel, 1/16
Diam., 2 Length)

98380A427

McMaster-Carr

7.55/5 (5x2in)

2.2m

65.39

LCD Screen (16x2)

Amazon.caCARCHET

2.99

2.99

Breadboard

Amazon.caCARCHET

4.08

4.08

Total Cost ($)

133.67
Table A-1: Ladder Components part cost estimate.

Source

Cost ($)

Description

Island Blue

23.52

Poster used for final presentation

Home Depot

6.68

Heat shrink used for attaching the wires to the rungs

Home Depot

28.41

Bolts, screws, washers for assembling the ladder structure

Home Depot

8.91

Heat shrink, lighter(for heat shrink)

Queale Electronics

26.07

Wire, crimps for electrical components

General Metals

31.00

Plexiglas for ladder, metal beams for ladder structure

25.99

Arduino Mega Microcontroller

Total

150.58
Table A-2: Overall Project costs and sources.

24

12.0 Appendix B: Solidworks Drawings

25

26

27

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

BME 499
Ladder to Recovery Inc.
PRELIMINARY PROGRESS REPORT

Step Detector for Stroke Measurement in Mice

June 2, 2015

GROUP 2:
SARAH WONG V00772780
SAM POLLOCK V00722695
MICHAEL PEIRONE V00732725
ALEXANDER BURDEN V00729892

28

Abstract
The ability to perform simple, everyday tasks, such as tying a shoelace or buttoning a shirt, are
often lost after experiencing a stroke. The Brown lab at the University of Victoria dedicates their
research to understanding what happens to the brain after a stroke, allowing them to devise
intelligent strategies to help stroke patients recover some motor functions and achieve a higher
quality of living. Mice and rats are commonly used to model the effects of strokes because they
display similar post-stroke motor deficits to humans. Strokes are induced in a specific motor part
of the brain, which leads to subtle defects in how well the rodent uses its left forepaw. This
project targets the challenge of quantifying these subtle defects in the sensory-motor function of
the affected paw. The testing system will feature a horizontal ladder with rungs spaced 1-2 cm
apart, and the placement of the affected paw on each rung of the ladder will be measured to
determine stroke severity. The rungs of the ladder will be wired to act as sensors such that a
complete grasp will result in the completion of two circuits, while a partial grasp and a slip will
result in the completion of only one or neither circuit. Healthy rodents are expected to display
only full grasps, whereas those with induced strokes are expected to show a significant number
of partial grasps and slips. The grasp results from each trial will be displayed in table format on a
screen connected to the testing system.

29

1.0 Project Introduction and Scope

The purpose of this project is to design a method of determining the presence and severity of
strokes in laboratory mice. To accomplish this, a horizontal ladder with the ability to detect the
paw position of a mouse will be developed. As part of stroke treatment research, a mouse is
encouraged to walk across the ladder and grasp 2mm rungs with its paws. A mouse with a stroke
will not be able to fully grasp the rungs because it has lost some feeling in one or more paws.
Mice which do not have strokes are able to completely wrap their paws around the rung.
Currently, a camera is moved below the mouse to record its walk across the ladder. The camera
is generally moved by a laboratory worker by pushing it on a cart so that it is directly below the
mouse at all times. This video will then be reviewed frame-by-frame to determine how the
mouse was grasping the ladder rungs, and the laboratory worker will keep track of the number of
times the mouse fully grasps the rungs and the number of times the mouse is not able to properly
grasp the rung. By carrying out this procedure multiple times over a period of several weeks the
rehabilitation progress of a given mouse can be tracked. However, a new method of detecting the
manner in which the mouse grasps the ladder rungs must be developed, as the current method
requires a substantial number of man-hours to review the video capture frame-by-frame. The
new method should be able to instantly record the number of each type of grasp (proper, partial,
and missed) with a microcontroller so that it is available for analysis by lab technicians.
2.0 Need and Goal Statement
Need: Current mouse step ladders do not detect paw grips and require human interaction to
measure mouse movement, a process which can take several hours per test.
Goal: Design a mouse step ladder that is able to automatically detect mouse paw grips and
removes the need for extensive human review of the data.
3.0 Proposed Solution
There are several possible methods for automatically determining the step pattern of a mouse.
These include capacitive touch sensing, force detection, and infrared detection. Due to the large
quantity of sensors that are needed, as in the optimal case every rung would have a separate left
and right sensor, which would each have their own top and bottom sensor. Thus, it is necessary
to devise a solution that is simple and cost efficient. Typical sensors of the necessary size range
can vary from $1- $50, which would be prohibitively costly if all of the approximately 30 rungs
30

of a typical ladder were fitted with sensors. The chosen solution to avoid high expenses is to
build from scratch digital sensors that will act as very simple switches in a circuit. Two wires
will run a couple millimeters on the top and bottom of each rung. The metal rung will be
connected to power and each wire will linked to a microcontroller through a resistor. As the
mouse grips the rung it will complete a connection between the wires and the rung. The signal
from the wires on a given run will be used by the microcontroller to determine the grip type. A
full grip of the mouse's paw will touch both wires to the rung, while just a partial grasp will only
connect the top wire. With this simple sensor design, it will be possible to tell whether a mouse
has fully or partially grasped each rung, the ratio of which can then aid researchers by showing
how well the mouse is recovering from a stroke.
With the sensor on each rung designed, the sensor leads will be connected to an Arduino
to count, categorize, and display the mouse steps. A final decision has not been made as to how
this information will be displayed, however it will most likely either be shown on an LCD screen
or exported to a website.
4.0 Project Work Plan and Progress Made
The intended design of the mouse ladder is focussed upon the custom rung sensors, and the
microcontroller needed to manage the signals from each rung. At this stage there are six major
milestones which must be completed in order to create a fully functional stroke detection system,
the prototyping, initial testing, construction, algorithm design, final accuracy testing, and output
system design.
Firstly, the final rung prototypes must be completed. Several prototypes have already been
assembled, including oversized proof-of-concept and actual size tests of various manufacturing
styles. However, a prototype indicative of the final product must be assembled for use in testing
and, if sufficient, to use as a model for full-scale production of the rung sensors.
Once the final prototype is complete, testing at the University of Victoria Brown Laboratory will
be conducted to ensure that the system works well with actual mice. Key aspects of testing
include ensuring that the mouse naturally grasps the rung sensor, that the mouse exerts enough
force to complete the circuit, and that the rung is not damaged or degraded by repeated grasps.
After the viability of the final prototype has been confirmed, full-scale production will begin. A
plexiglass ladder frame is available for re-purposing from the Brown Laboratory, unless

31

unforeseen circumstances ensue this means that the only construction necessary will be creating
all of the approximately 60 rungs (about 30 rungs each for the right and left side).
At the same time as the construction of the rungs, other group members will begin writing the
necessary microcontroller code to manage the input from the rungs. As microcontrollers have
only a limited number of ports, each port will accept inputs from multiple rungs spaced far apart.
The code design will need to accommodate this fact.
Once the physical system and code are complete, exhaustive testing will be conducted, with
results compared to the standard method of determining the number of partial and failed grasps.
Based upon the results modifications to the coding or physical design may be necessary. The
data results will be obtained via a serial output buffer.
Finally, the data output system will be devised, which will replace the serial buffer used in
testing. The ease of use for researchers and general appearance will depend on available time. If
the rest of the project is behind schedule, a simple LCD screen output will be used, however if
possible a web portal will be developed to display results from the system.

Task

June 1

June 8

June 15

June 22

June 29

July 6

July 13

July 20

July 27

Final Prototyping
Initial Testing
Modifications / re-testing
Rung Construction
Core Software Design
Assembly
Full Apparatus Testing
Modifications
Output Method Design
Final Testing

32

Sarah

Sam

Design and
Sensor design and
fabrication of
implementation
modified sensor rungs
Design and
fabrication of ladder
system

Alex

Michael

Microcontroller
electrical design and
port management

Design and
fabrication of
modified sensor rungs

Graphic user interface Microcontroller

design
Software design

Design and
fabrication of ladder
system

5.0 Company Background

Our team, Quality Engineering (and Michael), is made up of 4 Biomedical Engineering
Undergraduates from the University of Victoria. Our goal as a company are to produce
Biomedical devices for research laboratories that combine high functionality with affordability.
The mouse step detector project exemplifies this by providing an alternative to both the timeintensive manual method of step measurement, as well as currently available automated systems
which cost thousands of dollars.
Sarah Wong - 3rd year BME (MECH Stream)
Sarah overlooks the entire design process and is involved with sensor
manufacturing ladder design streamlining and ergonomics.
Contact: smwong@uvic.ca

Alex Burden - 4th year BME (ELEC Stream)

Alex is in charge of designing the Arduino setup and software design
associated with input processing and output display of the sensor
information.
Contact: aburden@uvic.ca

33

Michael Peirone - 4th year BME (MECH Stream)

Michael takes care of the material and design manufacturing of the sensor
and ladder.
Contact: peirone1@uvic.ca

Sam Pollock - 4th Year BME (ELEC Stream)

Sam is involved in the sensor design and circuit implementation for
detecting the mouse grasp.
Contact: spollock@uvic.ca

34

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

BME 499
INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT

LADDER TO RECOVERY LTD.

STEP DETECTOR FOR STROKE

MEASUREMENT IN MICE
June 30, 2015

GROUP 2:
SARAH WONG V00772780
SAM POLLOCK V00722695
MICHAEL PEIRONE V00732725
ALEXANDER BURDEN V00729892

Summary
The ability to perform simple, everyday tasks, such as tying a shoelace or buttoning a
shirt, are often lost after experiencing a stroke. The Brown lab at the University of
Victoria dedicates their research to understanding what happens to the brain after a
stroke, allowing them to devise intelligent strategies to help stroke patients recover
some motor functions and achieve a higher quality of living. Mice and rats are
commonly used to model the effects of strokes because they display similar poststroke motor deficits to humans. Strokes are induced in a specific motor part of the
brain, which leads to subtle defects in how well the rodent uses its left forepaw. This
project targets the challenge of quantifying these subtle defects in the sensory-motor
function of the affected paw. The testing system will feature a horizontal ladder with
rungs spaced 1-2 cm apart, and the placement of the affected paw on each rung of the
ladder will be measured to determine stroke severity. The rungs of the ladder will be
wired to act as sensors such that a complete grasp will result in the completion of two
circuits, while a partial grasp and a slip will result in the completion of only one or
neither circuit. Healthy rodents are expected to display only full grasps, whereas those
with induced strokes are expected to show a significant number of partial grasps and
slips. The grasp results from each trial will be displayed in table format on a screen
connected to the testing system.

36

1.0 Project Introduction and Scope

The purpose of this project is to design a method of determining the presence and
severity of strokes in laboratory mice. To accomplish this, a horizontal ladder with
the ability to detect the paw position of a mouse will be developed. As part of stroke
treatment research, a mouse is encouraged to walk across the ladder and grasp 2mm
rungs with its paws. A mouse with a stroke will not be able to fully grasp the rungs
because it has lost some feeling in one or more paws. Mice which do not have strokes
are able to completely wrap their paws around the rung.
Currently, a camera is moved below the mouse to record its walk across the ladder.
The camera is generally moved by a laboratory worker by pushing it on a cart so that
it is directly below the mouse at all times. This video is then be reviewed frame-byframe to determine how the mouse was grasping the ladder rungs, and the laboratory
worker keeps track of the number of times the mouse fully grasps the rungs and the
number of times the mouse is not able to properly grasp the rung. By carrying out
this procedure multiple times over a period of several weeks the rehabilitation
progress of a given mouse can be tracked.
However, a new method of detecting the manner in which the mouse grasps the
ladder rungs must be developed, as the current method requires a substantial number
of man-hours to review the video capture frame-by-frame. The new method should
be able to instantly record the number of each type of grasp (proper, partial, and
missed) with a microcontroller so that it is available for analysis by lab technicians.
2.0 Need and Goal Statement
Need: Current mouse step ladders do not detect paw grips and require human
interaction to measure mouse movement, a process which can take several hours per
test.
Goal: Design a mouse step ladder that is able to automatically detect mouse paw grips
and removes the need for extensive human review of the data.

37

3.0 Detailed Design Description

There are several possible methods for automatically determining the step pattern of a
mouse. These include capacitive touch sensing, force detection, and infrared
detection. In the optimal case, every rung would have a separate left and right sensing
system to maximise the amount of data collected. Additionally, digital sensing
methods require a top and bottom sensor to differentiate between partial and full
grasps. Thus, it is necessary to devise a solution that is simple and cost efficient.
Typical sensors of the necessary size range can vary from $1- $50, which would be
prohibitively costly if all of the approximately 30 rungs of a typical ladder were fitted
with sensors. The chosen solution to avoid high expenses is to build from scratch
digital sensors that will act as very simple switches in a circuit.

Figure 1: Magnet-wire rung design

Two wires will run a couple millimeters on the top and bottom of each rung. The
metal rung will be connected to power and each wire will be linked to a
microcontroller through a resistor. As the mouse grips the rung it will complete a
connection between the wires and the rung. The signal from the wires on a given rung
will be used by the microcontroller to determine the grip type. A full grip of the
mouse's paw will touch both wires to the rung, while just a partial grasp will only
connect the top wire. With this simple sensor design, it will be possible to tell whether
a mouse has fully or partially grasped each rung, the ratio of which can then aid
researchers by showing how well the mouse is recovering from a stroke.
38

Figure 2: SolidWorks depiction of ladder structure

With the sensors on each rung designed, the sensor leads will be connected to an
Arduino to count, categorize, and display the mouse steps. A final decision has not
been made as to how this information will be displayed, however it will most likely
either be shown on an LCD screen or exported to a website. An LCD screen will
most likely be chosen to display data because it requires only a few microcontroller
I/Os, is easy to program, and it provides almost real-time data output for the
researcher to see. Using a website to output the data requires an additional
transmitter and some other hardware, as well as more complex software. However,
unlike the LCD screen, a website has the ability to save data and therefore show
multiple tests performed.
4.0 Project Work Plan and Timeline
The intended design of the mouse ladder is focused upon the custom rung sensors,
and the microcontroller needed to manage the signals from each rung. At this stage,
there are six major milestones which must be completed in order to create a fully
functional stroke detection system: the prototyping, initial testing, construction,
algorithm design, final accuracy testing, and output system design. Thus far,
prototyping and initial testing are completed, with construction in progress.
39

The current rung design consists of two wires on the top and bottom of the metal
rung, attached with heat-shrink at the ends and center. The wire used has an enamel
coating that insulates the wire that prevents it from being triggered unless the mouse
directly completes the circuit. To fabricate the rungs the enamel coating must be
removed in short segments with sandpaper. This exposed wire will conduct electricity
from the powered rung to the microcontroller. Currently, the rung design is partially
being reconsidered, with the wire placement potentially being changed to top and
front, to better detect the mouses paw movement.
After testing the newewst rung design, full-scale production will begin. A Plexiglas
ladder frame has been designed and constructed by the team, and the next stage of
construction will be building the necessary number of sensing rungs.
At the same time as the construction of the rungs, other group members will continue
to write the necessary microcontroller code to manage the input from the rungs. As
microcontrollers have only a limited number of ports, each port will accept inputs
from multiple rungs spaced far apart. The code design will need to accommodate this
fact.
Once the physical system and code are complete, exhaustive testing will be conducted,
with results compared to the standard method of determining the number of partial
and failed grasps. Based upon the results modifications to the coding or physical
design may be necessary. The data results will be obtained via a serial output buffer.
Finally, the data output system will be devised, which will replace the serial buffer
used in testing. The ease of use for researchers and general appearance will depend on
available time. If the rest of the project is behind schedule, a simple LCD screen
output will be used, however if possible a web portal will be developed to display
results from the system.

40

Task

June 1

June 8

June 15

June 22

June 29

July 6

July 13

July 20

July 27

Prototyping
Initial Testing
Modifications / re-testing
Rung Construction
Core Software Design
Assembly
Full Apparatus Testing
Modifications
Output Method Design
Final Testing

Table 1: Project Timeline

Sarah

Sam

Alex

Michael

Design and
fabrication of
modified sensor
rungs

Sensor design and

implementation

Microcontroller electrical
design and port
management

Design and
fabrication of
modified sensor
rungs

Design and
fabrication of ladder
system

Graphic user
interface design

Microcontroller Software
design

Design and
fabrication of ladder
system

Table 2: Team Task Distribution

41

5.0 Progress Made

Ladder to Recovery is currently on schedule for the completion of the mouse step
detector project. The rung design has been finalized, having undergone several rounds
of testing and modifications. Construction of the rungs has begun and will be
completed by the end of June 2015. The ladder structure has been finalized, designed
in Solidworks, machined, and assembled. A meeting with Dr. Brown is scheduled for
June 29, 2015 for testing of the new ladder structure and the finalized rung design.
The microcontroller for the software development has been received, and an initial
program has been developed.
The ladder and rung design has been tested multiple times at Dr. Browns laboratory
with a mouse to ensure it is correct and can collect the desired data. A microcontroller
was also used during the tests to collect information on the computer and determine
which sensor was triggered. The mice used during these tests did not have a stroke
induced and mostly were able to trigger the sensors. During previous tests the sensors
were not being triggered even when the mouse stepped directly on the rung. These
tests provided valuable feedback to improve the design along the way. The ladder
must also be tested using a mouse which has had a stroke induced to ensure the
software is able to determine slips on the mouses non-functioning paw.

6.0 Company Background

Our team, Ladder to Recovery, is made up of 4 biomedical engineering undergraduate
students from the University of Victoria. Our goal as a company is to produce
biomedical devices for research laboratories that combine high functionality with
affordability. The mouse step detector project exemplifies this by providing an
alternative to both the time-intensive manual method of step measurement, as well as
currently available automated systems which cost thousands of dollars.

42

Sarah Wong - 3rd year BME (MECH Stream)

Sarah overlooks the entire design process and is involved
with sensor manufacturing ladder design streamlining and
ergonomics.
Contact: smwong@uvic.ca

Alex Burden - 4th year BME (ELEC Stream)

Alex is in charge of designing the Arduino setup and

software design associated with input processing and output
display of the sensor information.
Contact: aburden@uvic.ca

Michael Peirone - 4th year BME (MECH Stream)

Michael takes care of the material and design
manufacturing of the sensor and ladder.
Contact: peirone1@uvic.ca

Sam Pollock - 4th Year BME (ELEC Stream)

Sam is involved in the sensor design and circuit
implementation for detecting the mouse grasp.
Contact: spollock@uvic.ca
43

7.0 Conclusions
Currently, Ladder to Recovery is on schedule for the completion of the mouse step
detector project. The next steps are to complete the construction of the rungs, install
them into the new ladder structure, complete the analytical programming, and test the
overall system.

44