ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Accuracy Evaluation of Selected Mobile Inspection Robot Localization Techniques in a GNSS-Denied Environment.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- A New Method of Airflow Velocity Measurement by UAV Flight Parameters Analysis for Underground Mine Ventilation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Autonomous Mobile Inspection Robots in Deep Underground Mining-The Current State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Novel Method of UAV-Assisted Trajectory Localization for Forestry Environments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accelerometer-Based Wheel Odometer for Kinematics Determination.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Locating an inspection robot is an essential task for inspection missions and spatial data acquisition. Giving a spatial reference to measurements, especially those concerning environmental parameters, e.g., gas concentrations may make them more valuable by enabling more insightful analyses. Thus, an accurate estimation of sensor position and orientation is a significant topic in mobile measurement systems used in robotics, remote sensing, or autonomous vehicles. Those systems often work in urban or underground conditions, which are lowering or disabling the possibility of using Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) for this purpose. Alternative solutions vary significantly in sensor configuration requirements, positioning accuracy, and computational complexity. The selection of the optimal solution is difficult. The focus here is put on the assessment, using the criterion of the positioning accuracy of the mobile robot with no use of GNSS signals. Automated geodetic surveying equipment is utilized for acquiring precise ground truth data of the robot's movement. The results obtained, with the use of several methods, compared: Wheel odometry, inertial measurement-based dead-reckoning, visual odometry, and trilateration of ultra-wideband signals. The suitability, pros, and cons of each method are discussed in the context of their application in autonomous robotic systems, operating in an underground mine environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.