A Comparative Study of RSSI-Based Localization Methods: RSSI Variation Caused by Human Presence and Movement

In a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based localization system, the presence or movement of humans is one of the major effects causing RSSI variation. Using RSSI data during such a situation to estimate the target position can give large errors. Regarding this problem, in this paper, a com...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sensing and imaging 2020-12, Vol.21 (1), Article 31
Hauptverfasser: Wattananavin, Thradon, Sengchuai, Kiattisak, Jindapetch, Nattha, Booranawong, Apidet
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Sensing and imaging
container_volume 21
creator Wattananavin, Thradon
Sengchuai, Kiattisak
Jindapetch, Nattha
Booranawong, Apidet
description In a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based localization system, the presence or movement of humans is one of the major effects causing RSSI variation. Using RSSI data during such a situation to estimate the target position can give large errors. Regarding this problem, in this paper, a comparison of several RSSI-based localization methods with and without human presence and movement were investigated experimentally. The major contribution of this work is that the well-known and widely used RSSI-based localization methods presented in the literature, including the min–max, the trilateration, the weighted centroid localization (WCL), and the relative span exponential weighted localization (REWL) methods, were tested. Thus, how human presence or absence influences the accuracy of these methods, and which methods show the best estimates while tolerating human movement effects can be investigated. The experiments were carried out in a laboratory and in a parking building. The results demonstrate that, without human movement effects, all methods perform very similarly. In contrast, human movements significantly increased estimation errors.Here, the maximum distance errors of the min–max, the trilateration, the WCL, and the REWL are 1.34 m, 4.09 m, 1.25 m, and 1.24 m, respectively. Obviously, the min–max, the WCL (with an optimal parameter), and the REWL (with the optimal parameter) can well tolerate the RSSI variations caused by human movements and provide significantly better accuracy than the trilateration method. Based on these findings, all the mentioned localization methods should be further improved to deal with the human movement problem.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11220-020-00296-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2419869780</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2419869780</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-3ecc0e1169978e7892f55bd1af64222aecdeb2f031f6b24b2743b13ec1345cb13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhRdRsFb_gKcFz9GdzWbTeKtBbaFFsep12WwmmtJk625SqL_exIjePDxmGL73Bh4h58AugbH4ygNwzgLWi_FEBnBARhBFccBZzA9_dymOyYn3a8aEEFKOyGZKU1tttdNNuUO6atp8T21Bn1areXCjPeZ0YY3elJ8dYGu6xObd5v76G6Cv2pXDPdVtz2Z7OmsrXdNHhx5rg1TXOV3aHVZYN6fkqNAbj2c_c0xe7m6f01mweLifp9NFYEJImiBEYxgCyCSJJxhPEl5EUZaDLqTgnGs0OWa8YCEUMuMi47EIM-hcEIrIdNuYXAy5W2c_WvSNWtvW1d1LxQUkE9nlso7iA2Wc9d5hobaurLTbK2Cqb1UNrSrWq29V9dHhYPIdXL-h-4v-x_UFImh5cg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2419869780</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparative Study of RSSI-Based Localization Methods: RSSI Variation Caused by Human Presence and Movement</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Wattananavin, Thradon ; Sengchuai, Kiattisak ; Jindapetch, Nattha ; Booranawong, Apidet</creator><creatorcontrib>Wattananavin, Thradon ; Sengchuai, Kiattisak ; Jindapetch, Nattha ; Booranawong, Apidet</creatorcontrib><description>In a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based localization system, the presence or movement of humans is one of the major effects causing RSSI variation. Using RSSI data during such a situation to estimate the target position can give large errors. Regarding this problem, in this paper, a comparison of several RSSI-based localization methods with and without human presence and movement were investigated experimentally. The major contribution of this work is that the well-known and widely used RSSI-based localization methods presented in the literature, including the min–max, the trilateration, the weighted centroid localization (WCL), and the relative span exponential weighted localization (REWL) methods, were tested. Thus, how human presence or absence influences the accuracy of these methods, and which methods show the best estimates while tolerating human movement effects can be investigated. The experiments were carried out in a laboratory and in a parking building. The results demonstrate that, without human movement effects, all methods perform very similarly. In contrast, human movements significantly increased estimation errors.Here, the maximum distance errors of the min–max, the trilateration, the WCL, and the REWL are 1.34 m, 4.09 m, 1.25 m, and 1.24 m, respectively. Obviously, the min–max, the WCL (with an optimal parameter), and the REWL (with the optimal parameter) can well tolerate the RSSI variations caused by human movements and provide significantly better accuracy than the trilateration method. Based on these findings, all the mentioned localization methods should be further improved to deal with the human movement problem.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1557-2064</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-2072</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11220-020-00296-1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Centroids ; Comparative studies ; Electrical Engineering ; Engineering ; Human motion ; Imaging ; Localization ; Microwaves ; Original Paper ; Parameters ; Radiology ; RF and Optical Engineering ; Signal strength</subject><ispartof>Sensing and imaging, 2020-12, Vol.21 (1), Article 31</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-3ecc0e1169978e7892f55bd1af64222aecdeb2f031f6b24b2743b13ec1345cb13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-3ecc0e1169978e7892f55bd1af64222aecdeb2f031f6b24b2743b13ec1345cb13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5346-1594</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11220-020-00296-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11220-020-00296-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wattananavin, Thradon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sengchuai, Kiattisak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jindapetch, Nattha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Booranawong, Apidet</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparative Study of RSSI-Based Localization Methods: RSSI Variation Caused by Human Presence and Movement</title><title>Sensing and imaging</title><addtitle>Sens Imaging</addtitle><description>In a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based localization system, the presence or movement of humans is one of the major effects causing RSSI variation. Using RSSI data during such a situation to estimate the target position can give large errors. Regarding this problem, in this paper, a comparison of several RSSI-based localization methods with and without human presence and movement were investigated experimentally. The major contribution of this work is that the well-known and widely used RSSI-based localization methods presented in the literature, including the min–max, the trilateration, the weighted centroid localization (WCL), and the relative span exponential weighted localization (REWL) methods, were tested. Thus, how human presence or absence influences the accuracy of these methods, and which methods show the best estimates while tolerating human movement effects can be investigated. The experiments were carried out in a laboratory and in a parking building. The results demonstrate that, without human movement effects, all methods perform very similarly. In contrast, human movements significantly increased estimation errors.Here, the maximum distance errors of the min–max, the trilateration, the WCL, and the REWL are 1.34 m, 4.09 m, 1.25 m, and 1.24 m, respectively. Obviously, the min–max, the WCL (with an optimal parameter), and the REWL (with the optimal parameter) can well tolerate the RSSI variations caused by human movements and provide significantly better accuracy than the trilateration method. Based on these findings, all the mentioned localization methods should be further improved to deal with the human movement problem.</description><subject>Centroids</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Electrical Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Human motion</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Localization</subject><subject>Microwaves</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>RF and Optical Engineering</subject><subject>Signal strength</subject><issn>1557-2064</issn><issn>1557-2072</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhRdRsFb_gKcFz9GdzWbTeKtBbaFFsep12WwmmtJk625SqL_exIjePDxmGL73Bh4h58AugbH4ygNwzgLWi_FEBnBARhBFccBZzA9_dymOyYn3a8aEEFKOyGZKU1tttdNNuUO6atp8T21Bn1areXCjPeZ0YY3elJ8dYGu6xObd5v76G6Cv2pXDPdVtz2Z7OmsrXdNHhx5rg1TXOV3aHVZYN6fkqNAbj2c_c0xe7m6f01mweLifp9NFYEJImiBEYxgCyCSJJxhPEl5EUZaDLqTgnGs0OWa8YCEUMuMi47EIM-hcEIrIdNuYXAy5W2c_WvSNWtvW1d1LxQUkE9nlso7iA2Wc9d5hobaurLTbK2Cqb1UNrSrWq29V9dHhYPIdXL-h-4v-x_UFImh5cg</recordid><startdate>20201201</startdate><enddate>20201201</enddate><creator>Wattananavin, Thradon</creator><creator>Sengchuai, Kiattisak</creator><creator>Jindapetch, Nattha</creator><creator>Booranawong, Apidet</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5346-1594</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201201</creationdate><title>A Comparative Study of RSSI-Based Localization Methods: RSSI Variation Caused by Human Presence and Movement</title><author>Wattananavin, Thradon ; Sengchuai, Kiattisak ; Jindapetch, Nattha ; Booranawong, Apidet</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-3ecc0e1169978e7892f55bd1af64222aecdeb2f031f6b24b2743b13ec1345cb13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Centroids</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Electrical Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Human motion</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Localization</topic><topic>Microwaves</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>RF and Optical Engineering</topic><topic>Signal strength</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wattananavin, Thradon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sengchuai, Kiattisak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jindapetch, Nattha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Booranawong, Apidet</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Sensing and imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wattananavin, Thradon</au><au>Sengchuai, Kiattisak</au><au>Jindapetch, Nattha</au><au>Booranawong, Apidet</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparative Study of RSSI-Based Localization Methods: RSSI Variation Caused by Human Presence and Movement</atitle><jtitle>Sensing and imaging</jtitle><stitle>Sens Imaging</stitle><date>2020-12-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><artnum>31</artnum><issn>1557-2064</issn><eissn>1557-2072</eissn><abstract>In a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based localization system, the presence or movement of humans is one of the major effects causing RSSI variation. Using RSSI data during such a situation to estimate the target position can give large errors. Regarding this problem, in this paper, a comparison of several RSSI-based localization methods with and without human presence and movement were investigated experimentally. The major contribution of this work is that the well-known and widely used RSSI-based localization methods presented in the literature, including the min–max, the trilateration, the weighted centroid localization (WCL), and the relative span exponential weighted localization (REWL) methods, were tested. Thus, how human presence or absence influences the accuracy of these methods, and which methods show the best estimates while tolerating human movement effects can be investigated. The experiments were carried out in a laboratory and in a parking building. The results demonstrate that, without human movement effects, all methods perform very similarly. In contrast, human movements significantly increased estimation errors.Here, the maximum distance errors of the min–max, the trilateration, the WCL, and the REWL are 1.34 m, 4.09 m, 1.25 m, and 1.24 m, respectively. Obviously, the min–max, the WCL (with an optimal parameter), and the REWL (with the optimal parameter) can well tolerate the RSSI variations caused by human movements and provide significantly better accuracy than the trilateration method. Based on these findings, all the mentioned localization methods should be further improved to deal with the human movement problem.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11220-020-00296-1</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5346-1594</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1557-2064
ispartof Sensing and imaging, 2020-12, Vol.21 (1), Article 31
issn 1557-2064
1557-2072
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2419869780
source SpringerLink Journals
subjects Centroids
Comparative studies
Electrical Engineering
Engineering
Human motion
Imaging
Localization
Microwaves
Original Paper
Parameters
Radiology
RF and Optical Engineering
Signal strength
title A Comparative Study of RSSI-Based Localization Methods: RSSI Variation Caused by Human Presence and Movement
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T00%3A02%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20RSSI-Based%20Localization%20Methods:%20RSSI%20Variation%20Caused%20by%20Human%20Presence%20and%20Movement&rft.jtitle=Sensing%20and%20imaging&rft.au=Wattananavin,%20Thradon&rft.date=2020-12-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.artnum=31&rft.issn=1557-2064&rft.eissn=1557-2072&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11220-020-00296-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2419869780%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2419869780&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true