Jillian Wojcik Portfolio
Jillian WojcikBiomedical Engineering · Penn State · Dec 2026

Jillian Wojcik

Biomedical engineer working where the sensor meets the signal — building instrumentation, then proving what it measured is real.

B.S. Biomedical Engineering at Penn State, graduating December 2026. My work runs from firmware and soldered boards to materials testing, computational models and MATLAB analysis, often on the same project.

Currently: leading a 7-person team building a wearable vocal dosimeter for Penn State's Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders. The prototype is in early bench testing. See where it stands.
Portrait of Jillian Wojcik
Team of 7Project manager for a wearable voice and activity monitorIn progress → 96%Accuracy of my MATLAB classifier at flagging abnormal heart recordingsECG classifier → 3.8× lessVariation in artery wall stress for the stent design my simulation selectedStent modeling → < 2% errorBrain-signal filter circuit I designed and built for $9.60 (budget $11)EEG circuit →

Selected work

nine projects · 2024–2026
Wearable sensingEmbedded firmwareBiosignal processingBiomaterials & mechanical testingAnalog & digital circuit designComputational modelingMedical imaging research

Wearable instrumentation · senior design

Wearable Vocal Dosimeter & Activity Monitor

A wearable that records voice use and body movement together. I manage the team, set the requirements and write the firmware. Early bench result: measured speaking time within 2.9% of actual.

Work in progress

This device is still being developed. Everything below comes from early bench tests of a wired prototype on a lab bench. It has not yet been tested as a finished wearable or in full-day wear, and the numbers will change as testing continues.

Clinicians studying pelvic-floor dysfunction in women suspect that vocal effort and physical exertion interact, but the two are almost never measured on the same clock. I lead a seven-person student team building a wearable that records both at once: voice from a microphone at the neck, body movement from an accelerometer, logged together on an ESP32 to a microSD card with shared timestamps so the two streams can be compared second by second.

As project manager I turned the research question into device requirements, set the targets the hardware has to hit, and coordinate the team against them. I also write and debug Arduino (C++) firmware for sensor acquisition and logging, and build the MATLAB analysis that checks whether the device's voice detection matches what actually happened.

Project status

  1. RequirementsResearch question turned into device targets
    Done
  2. First prototypeESP32 firmware, neck mic, microSD logging
    Done
  3. Bench testingChecking voice detection against scripted trials
    Now
  4. Wearable buildEnclosure and synced activity sensing
    Next
  5. Wear validationFull-day recordings
    Planned

System design

Neck microphonePicks up voicing at the throat
AccelerometerPosture and movement
ESP32Samples both, computes RMS and pitch (F0)
microSD logTimestamped to one clock, no tether
MATLABVocal-load and activity metrics

Teal blocks are running on the current bench prototype. The others are designed but not yet integrated and tested.

Early bench test results

The first test followed a 60-second script: three 10-second voicing periods separated by silence. I compared two ways of deciding "voice on": a simple loudness (RMS) threshold, and a check on whether a stable pitch is present. Pitch held near 120 Hz throughout each voiced period, and the device's running phonation total landed close to the 30 seconds actually voiced. The plot also showed the loudness-only detector firing on brief noise during silence, which is why the pitch check is being kept in the design.

Three stacked MATLAB plots over 60 seconds: neck microphone RMS amplitude rising during three voiced periods; expected versus detected voice activity for an RMS detector and a pitch-based detector; and pitch near 120 Hz with cumulative phonation time rising to about 30 seconds.
MATLAB check of a bench recording. Top: neck microphone RMS against the detection threshold. Middle: expected voicing (blue) against the RMS detector (red) and the pitch-based detector (green). Bottom: pitch (F0) and the device's running phonation total.
Preliminary97.1%Agreement with expected phonation time in bench tests (2.9% error)
Preliminary~108–500 HzRange of vocal pitch detected so far
Design target6–8 h+Continuous recording on one wear, not yet tested
Live serial plotter showing RMS in millivolts rising and falling as the tester speaks, against a fixed threshold line.
Live readout from the ESP32 during firmware debugging: RMS (green) against the threshold.
Prototype microphone taped to the front of a tester's neck with wires running down.
Bench prototype: microphone taped at the neck, still wired to the board.
Team members working at a lab bench with laptops and the prototype.
The team testing in the lab.

Next steps

Repeat the bench protocol with more speakers and louder background noise, bring the accelerometer onto the same timestamps, move from a wired bench setup to a body-worn enclosure, and then measure battery life and data quality over a full day of wear.

Biomechanics lab · BME 429

Mechanical Testing of Teflon, Rubber and Beef Muscle Tissue

Measured strength, stiffness and fatigue of materials with tensile testers, then compared to a COMSOL model. Result: muscle was about 28× stiffer cut across the fibers than along them.

Before a material goes into a device or a tissue model, you need to know how stiff it is, where it yields, and how it behaves when it's loaded thousands of times. We pulled Teflon dog-bone samples and beef tissue to failure on a Lloyd tensile tester, cycled Teflon and rubber bands 500 times at 1, 10 and 50 Hz on a Bose ElectroForce, and built a COMSOL model of the dog-bone sample to see where stress concentrates.

437.6 MPaTeflon Young's modulus, ±113.7 (n = 27)
9.86 MPaTeflon yield strength, ±1.76
~28×Stiffer cutting across the muscle grain than along it (p = 0.0028)

Beef tissue: stiffness with vs. against the muscle fibers

Beef cut against the grain had a mean modulus of 0.486 MPa. Cut with the grain, it was 0.0173 MPa. A two-sample t-test confirmed the difference. This was the opposite of what we predicted, and it showed how much sample preparation and clamping affect soft-tissue test results.

Cyclic (fatigue) testing results

At 1 Hz, Teflon settled from about 13.1 N to 12.5 N of load amplitude over the first 150 cycles and then held steady, a 4.6% drop. Rubber bands barely changed at any frequency. At 10 Hz, Teflon's stress lagged its strain by roughly 108°, a clear sign of viscoelastic, rate-dependent behavior. At 50 Hz the Bose system captured only about two points per cycle, so I flagged those loops and phase plots as unusable instead of reporting an energy loss the data couldn't support.

COMSOL von Mises stress plot of a Teflon dog-bone sample, with stress concentrated in the narrow gauge section.
COMSOL von Mises stress in the Teflon dog-bone. Stress peaks in the narrow gauge section and near its transitions, where failure was expected to start.
Teflon, Lloyd testMeanSD
Young's modulus (MPa)437.59113.66
Yield strength (MPa)9.8621.761
Strain at fracture3.0040.380
Gauge length (mm)25.710.50
Gauge thickness (mm)0.8460.025

Group results; 30 samples measured, 27 tested to failure at 100 mm/min.

Biomaterials lab · BME 429

Blood Cell Analysis and Biomaterial Surface Testing

Counted and identified blood cells under the microscope, and tested how blood fluids spread on glass, Teflon and cell-culture plastic. Result: the surface material, not the fluid, changed how liquids spread (p < 0.05).

Anything implanted in the bloodstream is judged first by its surface: how plasma proteins stick to it shapes clotting and the body's response. We characterized bovine blood cells, measured how plasma, red blood cells and water spread on three common lab surfaces, and tested glycerin–water mixtures as stand-ins for blood viscosity.

Contact angle results

I photographed 15 µL droplets and measured contact angles in ImageJ, nine droplets per fluid–surface pair, then ran one-way ANOVAs both ways. Surface type changed the angle significantly for every fluid (all p < 0.05). Fluid type made no significant difference on any surface. Teflon sat right around the 90° line where liquids stop wetting a surface.

Five microscope images of hemocytometer grid regions with red blood cells.
Hemocytometer regions imaged at 10×. Nine ImageJ counts averaged 45.78 ± 5.59 RBCs per square.
Wright–Giemsa stained blood smear with two white blood cells marked by arrows.
Wright–Giemsa stain separating two white blood cells (arrows) from the surrounding red cells.
Grid of droplet photographs on glass, Teflon and tissue-culture slides.
Droplets of plasma, RBCs and water on each surface, as measured in ImageJ.

Limitations

The RBC estimate came out at about 11.4 million cells/µL, well above typical reference ranges, so we reported it as a sign of dilution or sampling error rather than an abnormal sample. The Zahn cup equations returned negative viscosities for our mixtures, which meant the cup was outside its calibrated range. Instead of reporting those values, I used drain time as the comparison. On that basis, bovine blood matched a mixture of roughly 23.6% glycerin (R² = 0.93 for the fit).

Research experience

Ultrasound and Photoacoustic Imaging for Prostate Cancer

Undergraduate researcher on an NCI-funded imaging project: equipment setup, sample prep and cell culture. The group published the system in Proceedings of SPIE.

Photoacoustic imaging fires light into tissue and listens to the ultrasound it generates, which reveals vasculature and oxygenation that conventional ultrasound misses. It also means the data is only as good as the setup: small inconsistencies in alignment, coupling or sample preparation show up as artifacts you cannot remove later.

My contribution was to that reproducibility. I configured and troubleshot imaging equipment, prepared biological samples and experimental materials, and standardized acquisition setups so runs could be compared to each other. I also maintained, passaged and expanded mammalian cell cultures four to eight times a week, checking morphology, confluency and density under the microscope before imaging time was spent on them.

NCI-fundedFederally funded prostate-imaging research program
4–8×Weekly cell-culture passages to keep imaging runs comparable
SPIEGroup publication in Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 13851
Multiparametric transrectal ultrasound and photoacoustic imaging system for prostate cancer diagnosis Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 13851 · doi:10.1117/12.3080814 · publication from the research group Read it on SPIE Digital Library

Computational modeling · COMSOL

Coronary Stent Design Comparison Using Blood Flow Simulation

Simulated blood flow through a coronary artery with four different stent designs to find which one disrupts flow least. Result: the thin elliptical-strut design was best.

Stent struts sit directly in the bloodstream. Their shape changes the velocity field and the shear the artery wall feels, and abnormal wall shear stress is associated with endothelial damage and platelet activation. Holding hole size constant, we asked whether strut cross-section and thickness measurably change hemodynamics in a left anterior descending bifurcation.

I built the arterial model and researched the clinical scenario it had to represent. We subtracted four stent designs (elliptical and rectangular struts at 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm) from the lumen and solved steady laminar flow against an unstented control: inlet 0.2 m/s, outlet 13,332 Pa, blood at 1060 kg/m³ and 0.0035 Pa·s. Reynolds number 187 and Womersley number 2 justified the steady laminar treatment.

LAD bifurcation lumen geometry.
LAD bifurcation lumen.
Elliptical strut stent.
Elliptical struts.
Rectangular strut stent.
Rectangular struts.
Wall shear stress map through the stent zone.
Wall shear stress at the struts.
Rect · 0.2 mm0.804
Ellip · 0.2 mm0.787
Rect · 0.4 mm0.672
Ellip · 0.4 mm0.663

Downstream velocity recovery as a fraction of inlet velocity, averaged over seven cut points. Thickness dominates.

Wall shear stress results

Velocity recovery alone would have picked the rectangular 0.2 mm design. Wall shear stress reversed that: the elliptical 0.2 mm design had the lowest peak stress and by far the smallest spread between maximum and minimum.

DesignMax WSS (Pa)Min WSS (Pa)Max/minRange (Pa)
Rect · 0.2 mm10.90.0427210.86
Rect · 0.4 mm18.70.0446818.66
Ellip · 0.2 mm8.60.12728.48
Ellip · 0.4 mm21.90.0543821.85
0.787Downstream velocity recovery, elliptical 0.2 mm
72Max/min wall shear stress ratio; next best was 272
22%Lower wall shear stress range than the next-best design

Limitations

Rigid walls, steady flow and generalized bifurcation dimensions simplify real coronary anatomy, and blood properties are literature values. The ranking holds under those assumptions; absolute stresses should not be read as clinical predictions. Pulsatile flow, compliant walls and rounded strut edges are the next changes I would make.

Analog signal conditioning

Analog EEG Filter Circuit for Four Brainwave Bands

Designed and built a circuit that splits a brain signal into delta, theta, alpha and beta waves and amplifies each. Result: all four bands met spec with under 2% error, for $9.60.

A scalp EEG arrives as one crowded, microvolt-scale trace. Clinically, what matters is how much energy sits in each band: delta for deep sleep, theta for drowsiness, alpha for relaxed wakefulness, beta for active concentration. The brief was to separate all four from a raw input, amplify each to at least 2 V peak-to-peak, and keep the build under $11.

I split the input into four identical parallel branches rather than cascading them, so a failure in one band couldn't corrupt the others. Each branch is a high-pass RC, a low-pass RC and an LM741 non-inverting gain stage. With a 1 µF capacitor fixed across every stage, each corner frequency comes down to one resistor, and the weakest bands got the most gain.

BandVpp inVpp outGain, theoryGain, measuredError
Delta · ~2 Hz0.38 V2.15 V5.75.660.70%
Theta · ~6 Hz0.41 V2.32 V5.75.660.70%
Alpha · ~10 Hz0.72 V2.61 V3.73.631.89%
Beta · ~18 Hz0.65 V2.08 V3.23.180.63%
Amplified delta wave output.
Delta out
Amplified theta wave output.
Theta out
Amplified alpha wave output.
Alpha out
Amplified beta wave output.
Beta out
4/4Bands separated and above the 2 Vpp requirement
< 2%Worst-case gain error against theory
$9.60Total component cost against an $11 budget

Limitations and next steps

First-order RC sections roll off at 20 dB/decade, so adjacent bands overlap more than the table suggests. Higher-order filters, an instrumentation front end and lower-noise op-amps come before this could run on live scalp data.

Signal processing · machine learning

ECG Arrhythmia Classifier in MATLAB

MATLAB program that cleans heart recordings, finds each heartbeat and labels the recording normal or abnormal. Result: 96% accuracy on 200 recordings.

Two hundred ECG recordings, each carrying baseline drift from respiration and electrode movement. I built the full pipeline in MATLAB: a high-pass filter to flatten the baseline, adaptive thresholding to find R-peaks whose amplitude varies between records, and four physiological features from the R–R intervals, heart rate and its variability among them.

A 5-nearest-neighbors classifier on those four features reached 96% cross-validation accuracy separating normal from abnormal traces. The final model then scored 100 unseen recordings; ground-truth labels weren't provided for those, so that run shows throughput rather than a second accuracy figure.

96%Cross-validation accuracy
200Signals processed for training
100Unseen signals scored by the final model

Analog design to hardware

Five-Stage Audio Circuit on Breadboard and PCB

An audio mixer with vocal removal, bass/treble control, volume, an LED level meter and a headphone driver. Result: all five stages worked within 3% of predicted values.

I built the same design twice: once on a breadboard at ±15 V from a myDAQ, then on a printed circuit board running from two 9 V batteries. Dropping the rails changed the comparator thresholds in the LED display, so the resistor network had to be recalculated for the second build.

Mixer / karaokeSumming amp; L−R cancels centered vocals
Baxandall toneIndependent bass and treble
VolumeVariable divider
LED levelComparators at 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0.25 V
Driver0.5–1 V for headphones

I simulated all five blocks in Multisim, verified each against the oscilloscope on the breadboard, then soldered the PCB low-profile components first and debugged it stage by stage.

Board schematic of the five-stage audio circuit.
Board schematic.
PCB layout with component footprints.
PCB layout.
5/5Stages working on breadboard and PCB
< 3%Measured outputs against theory
2Supply rails designed for, ±15 V and ±9 V

Digital logic

Digital Logic Circuits: Input Detector and 3-Bit Counter

Two hardware builds: a circuit that detects specific 4-input patterns, and a counter with two modes. Result: every input combination tested and correct.

The first build was a four-input identifier, high only for the exact input combinations that mattered. Don't-care conditions collapsed the truth table; I minimized to both sum-of-products and product-of-sums, built both in hardware and confirmed they were equivalent across all 16 inputs.

The second was a 3-bit sequential circuit with a mode input: X = 0 counts 0 through 7 and wraps; X = 1 snaps down to the nearest power of two at or below the current state and holds. Wiring JK flip-flops as T flip-flops turned the excitation table into a question of which bits toggle, which cut the logic to minimize.

16/16Input combinations verified in hardware
8States demonstrated across both modes
2Equivalent implementations built, SOP and POS

Beyond the lab

leadership · clinical · mentoring

ABET undergraduate program representative

Penn State BME · Sep – Oct 2025

Selected by the Biomedical Engineering department head as one of three undergraduates to give student input on curriculum effectiveness, technical rigor and program quality during an ABET-related evaluation with a MathWorks representative.

Chiropractic assistant

Capstone Chiropractic · May – Dec 2025

Coordinated care for 40+ patients a shift (intake, treatment workflow, therapeutic equipment, scheduling and follow-up) while running insurance verification, billing and electronic records in RAPID practice-management software.

Mentor, Engineering Orientation Network

Mar 2025 – present

Mentor around 30 incoming engineering students as their first point of contact, and coordinate orientation programming with EON leadership and fellow mentors.

Modeling & analysis

  • MATLAB & Simulink
  • COMSOL Multiphysics
  • Mimics
  • NI Multisim
  • SolidWorks · AutoCAD
  • ImageJ · statistical analysis (ANOVA, t-tests)
  • ArcGIS

Hardware & firmware

  • Embedded C++ (Arduino) · ESP32
  • Sensor integration · microSD logging
  • Analog & digital circuit design
  • Breadboarding, soldering, PCB assembly
  • Oscilloscope · function generator · NI myDAQ
  • 3D printing

Lab & testing

  • Lloyd tensile & Bose cyclic testing
  • Contact angle & viscosity testing
  • Hemocytometry · Wright–Giemsa staining
  • ECG / EEG acquisition and analysis
  • Ultrasound & photoacoustic imaging
  • Cell culture & microscopy
  • Requirements, V&V and test protocols

Certifications

  • Foundations of Device Design — Penn State
  • Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Principles, Performance & Pitfalls — Applied Radiology, 1.0 Category A ARRT CE
  • MathWorks Onramps: MATLAB, Machine Learning, Simulink, Signal Processing, Image Processing

Let's talk

I'm looking for roles in medical devices, biomedical instrumentation and biosignal processing, starting after December 2026.

Jillian.A.Wojcik@gmail.com (571) 318-1623 linktr.ee/JillianWojcik B.S. Biomedical Engineering · The Pennsylvania State University · Expected December 2026