ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Performance Comparison between Different Industrial Real-Time Indoor Localization Systems for Mobile Platforms.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Testing and Evaluation Framework for Indoor Navigation and Positioning Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The flexibility and versatility associated with autonomous mobile robots (AMR) have facilitated their integration into different types of industries and tasks. However, as the main objective of their implementation on the factory floor is to optimize processes and, consequently, the time associated with them, it is necessary to take into account the environment and congestion to which they are subjected. Localization, on the shop floor and in real time, is an important requirement to optimize the AMRs' trajectory management, thus avoiding livelocks and deadlocks during their movements in partnership with manual forklift operators and logistic trains. Threeof the most commonly used localization techniques in indoor environments (time of flight, angle of arrival, and time difference of arrival), as well as two of the most commonly used indoor localization methods in the industry (ultra-wideband, and ultrasound), are presented and compared in this paper. Furthermore, it identifies and compares three industrial indoor localization solutions: Qorvo, Eliko Kio, and Marvelmind, implemented in an industrial mobile platform, which is the main contribution of this paper. These solutions can be applied to both AMRs and other mobile platforms, such as forklifts and logistic trains. In terms of results, the Marvelmind system, which uses an ultrasound method, was the best solution.
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.