ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Comparison of Direct Intersection and Sonogram Methods for Acoustic Indoor Localization of Persons.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis and Accuracy Improvement of UWB-TDoA-Based Indoor Positioning System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Advanced Sensors and Systems Technologies for Indoor Positioning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We discuss two methods to detect the presence and location of a person in an acoustically small-scale room and compare the performances for a simulated person in distances between 1 and 2 m. The first method is Direct Intersection, which determines a coordinate point based on the intersection of spheroids defined by observed distances of high-intensity reverberations. The second method, Sonogram analysis, overlays all channels' room impulse responses to generate an intensity map for the observed environment. We demonstrate that the former method has lower computational complexity that almost halves the execution time in the best observed case, but about 7 times slower in the worst case compared to the Sonogram method while using 2.4 times less memory. Both approaches yield similar mean absolute localization errors between 0.3 and 0.9 m. The Direct Intersection method performs more precise in the best case, while the Sonogram method performs more robustly.
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.