<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection>
<dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:invenio="http://invenio-software.org/elements/1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:identifier>doi:10.1109/JSEN.2025.3614471</dc:identifier><dc:language>eng</dc:language><dc:creator>Martínez-Cesteros, Javier</dc:creator><dc:creator>Domínguez-Gimeno, Sergio</dc:creator><dc:creator>Castellanos-Ramos, Julián</dc:creator><dc:creator>Sánchez-Durán, José A.</dc:creator><dc:creator>Medrano-Sánchez, Carlos</dc:creator><dc:title>Characterization and Comparison of Piezoresistive Materials and Their Performance on Pressure-Sensitive Mats</dc:title><dc:identifier>ART-2025-146738</dc:identifier><dc:description>The response of three readily available low-cost piezoresistive materials (EeonTex, Ex-Static, and Velostat) and their performance on a specific application were studied in this work. First, a series of pressure cycles was applied with a pneumatic platform on piezoresistive sensors based on them. These experiments allowed quantifying several nonidealities: Variability, drift, creep, hysteresis, nonlinearity, and response time. An overview radar chart showed that hysteresis, variability, and response time were quantitatively more relevant and different between the materials. Then, pressure-sensitive mats (PSMs) were manufactured using each of those three materials. They were evaluated by measuring the center of pressure (CoP) in stability tests. A force platform (FP) served as a reference instrument. The best performance in this kind of experiment was obtained by the Velostat-based mat (trajectory distance of 0.021 versus 0.035 and 0.045 cm/sample for Ex-Static-based and EeonTexbased mats, respectively). This material also showed less response time (0.21 versus 0.42 and 0.50 s for Ex-Static and EeonTex, respectively) and hysteresis (0.11 versus 0.21 and 0.23 S/S for EeonTex and Ex-Static, respectively), although its variability was larger (0.137 versus 0.065 and 0.059 S/S for Ex-Static and EeonTex, respectively). These results indicate that response time and hysteresis have a major influence on the determination of the CoP. Further research should focus on compensating for these effects or finding sensor configurations that minimize them.</dc:description><dc:date>2025</dc:date><dc:source>http://zaguan.unizar.es/record/165278</dc:source><dc:doi>10.1109/JSEN.2025.3614471</dc:doi><dc:identifier>http://zaguan.unizar.es/record/165278</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>oai:zaguan.unizar.es:165278</dc:identifier><dc:relation>info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/DGA/T49-23R</dc:relation><dc:relation>info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/MCIN/PID2021-125091OB-I00</dc:relation><dc:relation>info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/MCINN/PID2024-158986OB-C21</dc:relation><dc:relation>info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/MCINN/PID2024-158986OB-C22</dc:relation><dc:identifier.citation>IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL 25, 22 (2025), 41373-41383</dc:identifier.citation><dc:rights>by</dc:rights><dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es</dc:rights><dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights></dc:dc>

</collection>