Energy Consumption and Latency Analysis forWireless Multimedia Sensor Networks
2010
- 183Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage183
- Downloads175
- Abstract Views8
Article Description
Energy and bandwidth are limited resources in wireless sensor networks, and communication consumes significant amount of energy. When wireless vision sensors are used to capture and transfer image and video data, the problems of limited energy and bandwidth become even more pronounced. Thus, message traffic should be decreased to reduce the communication cost. In many applications, the interest is to detect composite and semantically higher-level events based on information from multiple sensors. Rather than sending all the information to the sinks and performing composite event detection at the sinks or control-center, it is much more efficient to push the detection of semantically high-level events within the network, and perform composite event detection in a peer-to-peer and energy-efficient manner across embedded smart cameras. In this paper, three different operation scenarios are analyzed for a wireless vision sensor network. A detailed quantitative comparison of these operation scenarios are presented in terms of energy consumption and latency. This quantitative analysis provides the motivation for, and emphasizes (1) the importance of performing high-level local processing and decision making at the embedded sensor level and (2) need for peer-to-peer communication solutions for wireless multimedia sensor networks.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know