Flexible and thin displays for smart devices have a large coupling capacitance between the sensor electrode of the touch screen panel (TSP) and the display electrode. This increased coupling capacitance limits the signal passband to less than 100 kHz, resulting in a significant reduction in the received signal, with a driving frequency of several hundred kilohertz used for noise avoidance. To overcome this problem, we reduced the effective capacitance at the analog front-end by connecting a circuit with a negative capacitance in parallel with the coupling capacitance of the TSP. In addition, the in-phase and quadrature demodulation scheme was used to address the phase fluctuation between the signal and the clock during demodulation. We fabricated a test chip using the 0.35 µm CMOS process and obtained a signal-to-noise ratio of 43.2 dB for a 6 mm diameter metal pillar touch input.

No abstract

As today’s smartphone displays become thinner, the coupling capacitance between the display electrodes and touch screen panel (TSP) electrodes is increasing significantly. The increased capacitance easily introduces time-varying display signals into the TSP, deteriorating the touch performance. In this research, we demonstrate that the maximum peak display noise in the time domain is approximately 30% of the maximum voltage difference of the display grayscale through analysis of the structure and operation of displays. Then, to mitigate display noise, we propose a circuit solution that uses a fully differential charge amplifier with an input dynamic range wider than the maximum peak of the display noise. A test chip was fabricated using a 0.35 μm CMOS process and achieved a signal-to-noise ratio of 41 dB for a 6-mm-diameter metal pillar touch when display pulses with 5-V swing were driven at 100 kHz.

PurposeThe goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of rotator cuff repair, depending on the presence of developed periimplant osteolysis (PIO) after using suture anchors. MethodsThe electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles published up until October 2019 to find relevant articles comparing the outcomes of rotator cuff repair between the periimplant osteolysis group and non‐periimplant osteolysis group. Data searching, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The results are presented as risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes and standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsSix clinical studies were included. No significant differences were found between the group with periimplant osteolysis and the group without periimplant osteolysis regarding retear rate (RR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.93–1.94; I2 = 28%), postoperative clinical scores (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI − 0.26 to 0.83; I2 = 80%) and range of motion (ROM); forward flexion (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI − 0.16 to 0.93; I2 = 0%), external rotation (SMD = − 0.10; 95% CI − 0.64 to 0.45; I2 = 0%) and internal rotation (SMD = − 0.37; 95% CI − 0.92 to 0.17; I2 = 0%). ConclusionThe presence of periimplant osteolysis after rotator cuff repair with suture anchor does not affect the clinical outcomes such as retear rate, clinical scoring, and ROM. However, as there was no standard consensus on the criteria for evaluating periimplant osteolysis, this result may not fully reflect the effect of periimplant osteolysis depending on its severity. Level of evidenceLevel IV.