ArticleMicromachines2026
Performance Analysis of Typical Data Fusion Algorithms for Inertial Measurement Arrays.
Article in Micromachines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper investigates data fusion for multi-MEMS gyroscope arrays by comparing four methods: numerical averaging, weighted least squares, direct estimation Kalman filtering, and indirect estimation Kalman filtering. The state-estimation characteristics and observability of the two Kalman-filter models are also analyzed. The performance of the four methods is evaluated through controlled simulations, static experiments, dynamic turntable experiments, and array-size analysis. The simulation and static experimental results show that when the IMUs exhibit similar Allan bias-instability characteristics, the four methods yield relatively similar results in terms of bias instability. When the Allan bias-instability characteristics of the IMUs differ, numerical averaging provides poorer performance, whereas the other three methods yield comparable results in terms of bias instability. When different error components are present and exhibit conflicting trends, fixed weighting based on a single statistical indicator may lead to weight mismatch. In the dynamic experiment, the three-axis gyroscope and three-axis accelerometer measurements are separately processed using the same fusion method, and the resulting six-axis fused data are used as inputs to the PSINS inertial navigation system, with the final horizontal position drift adopted as a system-level performance metric. Under the tested dynamic conditions, the direct estimation Kalman filter achieves the smallest final horizontal position drift, followed by the indirect estimation Kalman filter, while both outperform numerical averaging and fixed-weight fusion. The array-size analysis shows that the performance gain gradually diminishes as the number of IMUs increases. The geometric knee point is located at approximately 21 IMUs, and the main performance-transition range is approximately 21-30 IMUs. Under the simulation and experimental conditions considered in this study, this range provides a favorable trade-off among fusion performance, computational burden, and array complexity.
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.