17 resultados para 22-217A
Resumo:
In this paper, a novel 2×2 multiple-input multiple-output orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (MIMO-OFDM) testbed based on an Analog Devices AD9361 highly integrated radio frequency (RF) agile transceiver was specifically implemented for the purpose of estimating and analyzing MIMO-OFDM channel capacity in vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) environments using the 920 MHz industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band. We implemented two-dimensional discrete cosine transform-based filtering to reduce the channel estimation errors and show its effectiveness on our measurement results. We have also analyzed the effects of channel estimation error on the MIMO channel capacity by simulation. Three different scenarios of subcarrier spacing were investigated which correspond to IEEE 802.11p, Long-Term Evolution (LTE), and Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial (DVB-T)(2k) standards. An extensive MIMO-OFDM V2I channel measurement campaign was performed in a suburban environment. Analysis of the measured MIMO channel capacity results as a function of the transmitter-to-receiver (TX-RX) separation distance up to 250 m shows that the variance of the MIMO channel capacity is larger for the near-range line-of-sight (LOS) scenarios than for the long-range non-LOS cases, using a fixed receiver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) criterion. We observed that the largest capacity values were achieved at LOS propagation despite the common assumption of a degenerated MIMO channel in LOS. We consider that this is due to the large angular spacing between MIMO subchannels which occurs when the receiver vehicle rooftop antennas pass by the fixed transmitter antennas at close range, causing MIMO subchannels to be orthogonal. In addition, analysis on the effects of different subcarrier spacings on MIMO-OFDM channel capacity showed negligible differences in mean channel capacity for the subcarrier spacing range investigated. Measured channels described in this paper are available on request.
Resumo:
We recently noticed an error in the demographic data in this article. The validity of the findings and the conclusions of the paper is not affected. However, there is an error in the reported sample size and in the means and standard deviations of the subjects’ ages and MMSE scores. We would like to correct this error, which came to light when we were re-analyzing the data for a meta-analysis. The error occurred because an older version of a spreadsheet was incorrectly used when reporting the sample composition. Instead of examining 12 Alzheimer's disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls, we in fact examined 17 Alzheimer’s disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls. All maps and morphometric data reported in the paper are correct, except that the sample size was in fact slightly higher than that originally reported, and the maps computed in the paper were based on the larger sample (which included five more subjects in the Alzheimer’s disease group). All of the maps and figures in the paper are correct, and the conclusions of the paper are unchanged. We apologize for this error, which falls under the sole responsibility of the first author. The corrected demographic information appears below.