Enhanced ShockBurst for Ultra Low-Power On-Demand Sensing

arxiv: 2604.07188 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY· eess.IV

Enhanced ShockBurst for Ultra Low-Power On-Demand Sensing

Ziyao Zhou , Chen Shen , Sicong Shen , Hen-Wei Huang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SYeess.IV

keywords Enhanced ShockBurstBluetooth Low Energyon-demand sensingultra low-power IoTevent-driven communicationimplantable medical devicesenergy efficiencypacket latency

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

Enhanced ShockBurst protocol achieves 0.68 ms packet latency and cuts system power by 60 percent versus BLE for event-driven IoT sensing.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the Enhanced ShockBurst protocol as a communication scheme for on-demand sensing where IoT devices stay in low-power states and transmit only when events occur. It performs side-by-side experiments on identical hardware to measure packet latency, transmission energy, throughput, wake-up overhead, and bidirectional traits against Bluetooth Low Energy. The results demonstrate that Enhanced ShockBurst delivers faster delivery of large payloads, nearly doubles throughput, and slashes wake-up costs by up to ten times. In a working prototype of an implantable loop recorder that sends triggered electrocardiogram data, the approach reaches a minimum communication power of 0.5 mW and lowers overall system power by roughly 60 percent. These outcomes indicate that connection-oriented protocols impose unnecessary overhead for sporadic, low-latency sensing tasks.

Core claim

Enhanced ShockBurst achieves a packet latency of 0.68 ms for a 244 byte payload, reduces per packet transmission time and energy by nearly 2x, increases maximum throughput by approximately 2x, and lowers wake up time and energy by up to 10x compared with BLE. The Enhanced ShockBurst based system enables rapid event driven communication with a minimum communication power of 0.5 mW and reduces total system power consumption by approximately 60 percent relative to BLE.

What carries the argument

The Enhanced ShockBurst protocol, a lightweight wireless scheme that supports direct, low-overhead packet exchange without persistent connections, enabling minimal wake-up energy and rapid response in duty-cycled devices.

If this is right

Larger payloads can be sent with roughly half the transmission time and energy, supporting richer data bursts in power-limited nodes.
Duty-cycled devices can achieve higher effective data rates while remaining asleep longer between events.
Event-triggered systems such as biomedical implants gain extended operating life from the reduced wake-up and communication overhead.
Bidirectional exchanges become practical at lower average power because connection setup costs are avoided.
On-demand sensing expands to applications previously ruled out by the latency and energy penalties of connection-oriented schemes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The protocol's low-overhead design could serve as a model for custom lightweight layers in other wireless standards when event-driven traffic dominates.
Power savings of this magnitude would compound in networks of multiple nodes if interference management preserves the single-link gains.
Field deployment with real radio interference and temperature variation would test whether the lab-measured advantages persist outside controlled conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The side-by-side hardware experiments capture genuine differences in latency, energy, and power without unmeasured variations in setup, timing, or measurement that could alter the reported gains.

What would settle it

Independent replication of the latency, throughput, and power-consumption tests on the same hardware platform but with separate timing instrumentation and power meters that finds no meaningful difference between the two protocols would falsify the central performance claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07188 by Chen Shen, Hen-Wei Huang, Sicong Shen, Ziyao Zhou.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison of single transmission procedures between BLE and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Power consumption profile during the transmission of a single 244- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of single-packet transmission latency (a) and energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Power consumption versus throughput for BLE and ESB during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Power consumption during wake-up and first packet transmission: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparison of wake-up time (a) and energy consumption (b) between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Power consumption of the nRF54L15 and MAX30003 in different wireless modes: (a) BLE connection, (b) ESB standby, and (c) ESB on/off. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Power consumption of the nRF54L15 as a function of FIFO size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

On demand sensing is emerging as a key paradigm in Internet of Things (IoT) systems, where devices remain in low power states and transmit data only upon event triggers. Such an operation requires wireless communication schemes that provide low latency, minimal wake up overhead, and high energy efficiency. However, widely adopted protocols such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) rely on connection oriented mechanisms that incur non negligible latency and energy overhead during sleep wake transitions, limiting their effectiveness for event driven sensing. In this work, Nordic Semiconductor's proprietary Enhanced ShockBurst (ESB) protocol is investigated as an alternative communication scheme for low power on demand IoT systems. A systematic experimental comparison between ESB and BLE is presented on the same hardware platform, evaluating packet level latency, transmission energy, achievable throughput, wake up overhead under duty cycled operation, and bidirectional communication characteristics. Results show that ESB achieves a packet latency of 0.68 ms for a 244 byte payload, reduces per packet transmission time and energy by nearly 2x, increases maximum throughput by approximately 2x, and lowers wake up time and energy by up to 10x compared with BLE. To demonstrate system level impact, an implantable loop recorder prototype with FIFO triggered electrocardiogram transmission is implemented. The ESB based system enables rapid event driven communication with a minimum communication power of 0.5 mW and reduces total system power consumption by approximately 60 percent relative to BLE. These results highlight the limitations of connection oriented protocols for on demand sensing and establish ESB as a lightweight and effective communication alternative for energy constrained IoT applications, including biomedical implants and event driven monitoring systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

ESB delivers lower latency and wake-up costs than BLE for on-demand sensing with a working ECG prototype, but the exact performance deltas rest on thinly documented measurements.

read the letter

ESB can cut packet latency to 0.68 ms and wake-up energy by up to 10x versus BLE on the same hardware, and the ECG implant prototype shows a 60% drop in total system power for event-driven transmission. The new part is the side-by-side test of latency, energy, throughput, and bidirectional behavior, plus the FIFO-triggered loop recorder that actually uses the low-power mode in a biomedical setting. That gives a practical data point beyond just protocol specs. The paper does a solid job laying out why connection-oriented protocols like BLE struggle with on-demand sensing and then showing ESB as a lighter option. The numbers are specific and the prototype works. The main limitation is in the experimental reporting. Claims of 2x and 10x improvements rest on measurements whose setup is not described in detail—no mention of how current was integrated, what oscilloscope settings were used, or any statistical spread. Without that, it's possible some of the advantage comes from how the stacks were configured rather than the protocol itself. The abstract gives the headline results but leaves the methods thin. This work is aimed at people designing ultra-low-power wireless nodes for IoT or implants where battery life is the bottleneck. Someone looking for a ready alternative to BLE for quick event responses will get concrete numbers and a working example to build on. It is worth sending to peer review. The prototype is a real strength and the comparison is useful, but referees will likely ask for more on the measurement methodology and perhaps raw traces or error analysis to confirm the gains are robust.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper investigates Nordic Semiconductor's Enhanced ShockBurst (ESB) protocol as an alternative to Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for ultra-low-power on-demand sensing in IoT systems. It presents a systematic experimental comparison on identical hardware evaluating packet latency, transmission energy, throughput, wake-up overhead, and bidirectional characteristics. Key claims include ESB achieving 0.68 ms latency for a 244-byte payload, nearly 2x reductions in per-packet transmission time/energy, ~2x higher maximum throughput, up to 10x lower wake-up time/energy, a minimum communication power of 0.5 mW, and ~60% lower total system power. A prototype implantable loop recorder with FIFO-triggered ECG transmission is used to demonstrate system-level benefits for event-driven biomedical applications.

Significance. If the reported performance deltas hold under rigorous verification, the work is significant for low-power wireless IoT and biomedical sensing. It provides concrete evidence that connection-oriented protocols like BLE incur substantial overhead for event-driven operation, while a lightweight proprietary protocol like ESB can deliver substantially lower latency and energy costs on the same hardware. The implantable prototype adds practical value by showing applicability to energy-constrained monitoring systems.

major comments (2)

Abstract and Results sections: The headline quantitative claims (0.68 ms latency, ~2x transmission reductions, ~2x throughput, up to 10x wake-up savings, 0.5 mW min power, 60% system power reduction) are presented as direct experimental outcomes but without error bars, number of trials, statistical tests, or any description of the measurement chain (oscilloscope bandwidth, shunt resistor, calibration, probe placement, or interrupt timing). Because these deltas constitute the central claim that ESB outperforms BLE, the absence of this supporting information is load-bearing and must be addressed before the results can be accepted at face value.
Experimental comparison section: The manuscript states that all tests were performed on the same hardware platform yet provides no explicit register settings, software stack details, or timing diagrams that would allow independent confirmation that the observed differences arise from protocol properties rather than implementation artifacts (e.g., differing radio configurations or measurement offsets). This is required to substantiate the weakest assumption that the comparison accurately isolates protocol-level advantages.

minor comments (1)

The abstract and prototype description would benefit from a brief statement of the exact nRF chip model and firmware version used for both ESB and BLE implementations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for acknowledging the significance of comparing ESB and BLE for event-driven sensing. We address each major comment below with targeted revisions that strengthen the experimental documentation while preserving the original findings.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and Results sections: The headline quantitative claims (0.68 ms latency, ~2x transmission reductions, ~2x throughput, up to 10x wake-up savings, 0.5 mW min power, 60% system power reduction) are presented as direct experimental outcomes but without error bars, number of trials, statistical tests, or any description of the measurement chain (oscilloscope bandwidth, shunt resistor, calibration, probe placement, or interrupt timing). Because these deltas constitute the central claim that ESB outperforms BLE, the absence of this supporting information is load-bearing and must be addressed before the results can be accepted at face value.

Authors: We agree that the absence of statistical detail and measurement methodology weakens the presentation of the central claims. In the revised manuscript we have added error bars (standard deviation) to all quantitative results based on 50 independent trials per condition. A new subsection in the Experimental Setup describes the full measurement chain: 100 MHz oscilloscope bandwidth, 1 Ω precision shunt resistor for current sensing, calibration against a Keysight 34465A multimeter, probe placement directly on the nRF52840 VDD line, and timing derived from GPIO interrupt timestamps synchronized to radio events. Paired t-tests confirm statistical significance (p < 0.01) for all reported deltas. These additions substantiate the claims without changing the reported numerical values. revision: yes
Referee: Experimental comparison section: The manuscript states that all tests were performed on the same hardware platform yet provides no explicit register settings, software stack details, or timing diagrams that would allow independent confirmation that the observed differences arise from protocol properties rather than implementation artifacts (e.g., differing radio configurations or measurement offsets). This is required to substantiate the weakest assumption that the comparison accurately isolates protocol-level advantages.

Authors: We accept that greater implementation transparency is required to isolate protocol effects. The revised manuscript includes a new appendix that lists the exact nRF52 radio register values used for ESB (e.g., packet length 244 bytes, 2 Mbps, no auto-ack) versus BLE (SoftDevice S140, connection interval 7.5 ms, 1 Mbps), the Nordic SDK version (17.0.2), and the precise software libraries invoked. We also provide timing diagrams showing the state-machine transitions and interrupt latencies for both protocols under identical hardware conditions. These details confirm that radio configuration and measurement offsets were matched, so the observed differences originate from protocol design. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; all claims are direct experimental measurements with no derivations or self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, derivations, or first-principles predictions. All performance claims (latency, energy, throughput, wake-up overhead, system power) are presented as results of direct hardware measurements comparing ESB and BLE on the same platform. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or renamed ansatzes. The central claims rest on empirical data rather than any analytical chain, satisfying the default expectation of negligible circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical experimental study with no mathematical derivations, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5608 in / 1188 out tokens · 37215 ms · 2026-05-10T17:54:22.086004+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Evolution of bluetooth technology: Ble in the iot ecosystem,

G. Koulouras, S. Katsoulis, and F. Zantalis, “Evolution of bluetooth technology: Ble in the iot ecosystem,”Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 25, 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Performance evaluation of bluetooth low energy: A systematic review,

J. Tosi, F. Taffoni, M. Santacatterina, R. Sannino, and D. Formica, “Performance evaluation of bluetooth low energy: A systematic review,” Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 17, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Challenges, applications, and future of wireless sensors in internet of things: A review,

M. A. Jamshed, K. Ali, Q. Abbasi, M. Imran, and M. Ur-Rehman, “Challenges, applications, and future of wireless sensors in internet of things: A review,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, pp. 5482–5494, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

The potential of miniaturized ingestible electronics,

G. Traverso, P. Sheehan, A. Bahaiet al., “The potential of miniaturized ingestible electronics,”Nature Electronics, vol. 9, pp. 5–7, 2026. IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL , VOL. XX, NO. X, MONTH YEAR 10

work page 2026
[5]

On-demand aoi minimization in resource-constrained cache-enabled iot networks with energy harvesting sensors,

M. Hatami, M. Leinonen, Z. Chen, N. Pappas, and M. Codreanu, “On-demand aoi minimization in resource-constrained cache-enabled iot networks with energy harvesting sensors,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 7446–7463, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

On-demand sensing and wireless power transfer for self-sustainable industrial internet of things networks,

W. Ejaz, M. Naeem, and S. Zeadally, “On-demand sensing and wireless power transfer for self-sustainable industrial internet of things networks,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 7075– 7084, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Blitz: Low latency and energy-efficient communication for event-triggered wireless sensing systems,

F. Sutton, R. D. Forno, J. Beutel, and L. Thiele, “Blitz: Low latency and energy-efficient communication for event-triggered wireless sensing systems,”ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN), vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–38, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Implantable loop recorder in clinical practice,

A. Bisignani, S. De Bonis, L. Mancuso, G. Ceravolo, and G. Bisignani, “Implantable loop recorder in clinical practice,”Journal of arrhythmia, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2019

work page 2019
[9]

Wearable and implantable wireless sensor network solutions for healthcare monitoring,

A. Darwish and A. E. Hassanien, “Wearable and implantable wireless sensor network solutions for healthcare monitoring,”Sensors, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 5561–5595, 2011

work page 2011
[10]

End-to-end design of ingestible electronics,

A. Abdigazy, M. Arfan, G. Lazzi, C. Sideris, A. Abramson, and Y . Khan, “End-to-end design of ingestible electronics,”Nature Electronics, vol. 7, pp. 102–118, 2024

work page 2024
[11]

Utilization of remote reprogramming to manage insertable cardiac monitor arrhythmia alert burden,

A. Seiler, S. Rosemas, J. Zhou, N. Franco, and J. Rogers, “Utilization of remote reprogramming to manage insertable cardiac monitor arrhythmia alert burden,”Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 35, pp. 341 – 345, 2024

work page 2024
[12]

Lessons learned from the development of wireless environmental sensors,

S. Folea and G. Mois, “Lessons learned from the development of wireless environmental sensors,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, pp. 3470–3480, 2020

work page 2020
[13]

Analysis of low-power operation for an environmental monitoring beacon,

T. Santejudean, S. Folea, and G. Mois, “Analysis of low-power operation for an environmental monitoring beacon,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics (AQTR), 2020, pp. 1–5

work page 2020
[14]

Dynamic data advertising and packet loss analysis using ble legacy advertising,

S. Gautam, R. Verma, and S. Kumar, “Dynamic data advertising and packet loss analysis using ble legacy advertising,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3123–3137, 2024

work page 2024
[15]

Anal- ysis of latency performance of bluetooth low energy (ble) networks,

K. Cho, W. Park, M. Hong, G. Park, W. Cho, J. Seo, and K. Han, “Anal- ysis of latency performance of bluetooth low energy (ble) networks,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59–78, 2014

work page 2014
[16]

On performance evaluation of ble 5 in indoor environment: An experimental study,

B. Badihi, M. U. Sheikh, K. Ruttik, and R. J ¨antti, “On performance evaluation of ble 5 in indoor environment: An experimental study,”2020 IEEE 31st Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp. 1–5, 2020

work page 2020
[17]

Veilleux

D. Veilleux. (2018, Jan.) Intro to shock- burst/enhanced shockburst. Nordic DevZone. [Online]. Avail- able: https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/nordic/nordic-blog/b/blog/posts/ intro-to-shockburstenhanced-shockburst

work page 2018
[18]

Wire- less low-latency synchronization for body-worn multi-node systems in sports,

N. Krull, L. Schulthess, M. Magno, L. Benini, and C. Leitner, “Wire- less low-latency synchronization for body-worn multi-node systems in sports,” in2025 IEEE 21st International Conference on Body Sensor Networks (BSN), 2025, pp. 1–4

work page 2025
[19]

Closed-loop transmission power control for reliable and low-power ble communication in dynamic iot settings,

Z. Zhou and H.-W. Huang, “Closed-loop transmission power control for reliable and low-power ble communication in dynamic iot settings,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1216–1228, 2026

work page 2026
[20]

A perspective on time toward wireless 6g,

P. Popovski, F. Chiariotti, K. Huang, A. E. Kalør, M. Kountouris, N. Pappas, and B. Soret, “A perspective on time toward wireless 6g,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 110, no. 8, pp. 1116–1146, 2022

work page 2022
[21]

Reevaluating bluetooth low energy for ingestible electronics,

Z. Zhou, Z. Sun, X. Shen, Y . Li, Z. Shi, Y . Yu, and H. Huang, “Reevaluating bluetooth low energy for ingestible electronics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19241, 2026. [22]MAX30003 Ultra-Low Power, Single-Channel Integrated Biopotential (ECG, R-to-R Detection) AFE, Analog Devices, Inc., 2021, rev. 3. [23]MAX30101: High-Sensitivity Pulse Oximeter and Heart-R...

work page arXiv 2026
[22]

Available: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ ds/MAX30101.pdf [24]MPU-6000 and MPU-6050 Product Specification, InvenSense Inc., 2013, revision 3.4, August 19, 2013

[Online]. Available: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ ds/MAX30101.pdf [24]MPU-6000 and MPU-6050 Product Specification, InvenSense Inc., 2013, revision 3.4, August 19, 2013. [On- line]. Available: https://invensense.tdk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 02/MPU-6000-Datasheet1.pdf

work page 2013
[23]

[Online]

Nordic Semiconductor ASA,Power Profiler Kit II User Guide, v1.0.1, Nordic Semiconductor ASA, Otto Nielsens veg 12, 7052 Trondheim, Norway, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nordicsemi.com/ Software-and-tools/Development-Tools/Power-Profiler-Kit-2

work page 2025
[24]

Overview and evaluation of bluetooth low energy: An emerging low-power wireless technology,

C. Gomez, J. Oller, and J. Aspas, “Overview and evaluation of bluetooth low energy: An emerging low-power wireless technology,”Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 12, pp. 11 734 – 11 753, 2012

work page 2012
[25]

Electrocardiogram sampling frequency range acceptable for heart rate variability analysis,

O. Kwon, J. Jeong, H. Kim, I. H. Kwon, S. Park, J. Kim, and Y . Choi, “Electrocardiogram sampling frequency range acceptable for heart rate variability analysis,”Healthcare Informatics Research, vol. 24, pp. 198 – 206, 2018. [28]Bluetooth Core Specification, Bluetooth SIG, Nov. 2025, prepared by the Core Specification Working Group

work page 2018
[26]

Security and privacy threats for bluetooth low energy in iot and wearable devices: A comprehensive survey,

A. Barua, M. A. A. Alamin, M. S. Hossain, and E. Hossain, “Security and privacy threats for bluetooth low energy in iot and wearable devices: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3, pp. 251–281, 2022

work page 2022
[27]

A survey on bluetooth low energy security and privacy,

M. C ¨asar, T. Pawelke, J. Steffan, and G. Terhorst, “A survey on bluetooth low energy security and privacy,”Comput. Networks, vol. 205, p. 108712, 2022. Ziyao Zhoureceived the B.Eng. degree in Commu- nication Engineering from the University of Elec- tronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China, in 2023, and the M.Sc. degree in Commu- nication E...

work page 2022

[1] [1]

Evolution of bluetooth technology: Ble in the iot ecosystem,

G. Koulouras, S. Katsoulis, and F. Zantalis, “Evolution of bluetooth technology: Ble in the iot ecosystem,”Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 25, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Performance evaluation of bluetooth low energy: A systematic review,

J. Tosi, F. Taffoni, M. Santacatterina, R. Sannino, and D. Formica, “Performance evaluation of bluetooth low energy: A systematic review,” Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 17, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Challenges, applications, and future of wireless sensors in internet of things: A review,

M. A. Jamshed, K. Ali, Q. Abbasi, M. Imran, and M. Ur-Rehman, “Challenges, applications, and future of wireless sensors in internet of things: A review,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, pp. 5482–5494, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

The potential of miniaturized ingestible electronics,

G. Traverso, P. Sheehan, A. Bahaiet al., “The potential of miniaturized ingestible electronics,”Nature Electronics, vol. 9, pp. 5–7, 2026. IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL , VOL. XX, NO. X, MONTH YEAR 10

work page 2026

[5] [5]

On-demand aoi minimization in resource-constrained cache-enabled iot networks with energy harvesting sensors,

M. Hatami, M. Leinonen, Z. Chen, N. Pappas, and M. Codreanu, “On-demand aoi minimization in resource-constrained cache-enabled iot networks with energy harvesting sensors,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 7446–7463, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

On-demand sensing and wireless power transfer for self-sustainable industrial internet of things networks,

W. Ejaz, M. Naeem, and S. Zeadally, “On-demand sensing and wireless power transfer for self-sustainable industrial internet of things networks,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 7075– 7084, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Blitz: Low latency and energy-efficient communication for event-triggered wireless sensing systems,

F. Sutton, R. D. Forno, J. Beutel, and L. Thiele, “Blitz: Low latency and energy-efficient communication for event-triggered wireless sensing systems,”ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN), vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–38, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Implantable loop recorder in clinical practice,

A. Bisignani, S. De Bonis, L. Mancuso, G. Ceravolo, and G. Bisignani, “Implantable loop recorder in clinical practice,”Journal of arrhythmia, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2019

work page 2019

[9] [9]

Wearable and implantable wireless sensor network solutions for healthcare monitoring,

A. Darwish and A. E. Hassanien, “Wearable and implantable wireless sensor network solutions for healthcare monitoring,”Sensors, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 5561–5595, 2011

work page 2011

[10] [10]

End-to-end design of ingestible electronics,

A. Abdigazy, M. Arfan, G. Lazzi, C. Sideris, A. Abramson, and Y . Khan, “End-to-end design of ingestible electronics,”Nature Electronics, vol. 7, pp. 102–118, 2024

work page 2024

[11] [11]

Utilization of remote reprogramming to manage insertable cardiac monitor arrhythmia alert burden,

A. Seiler, S. Rosemas, J. Zhou, N. Franco, and J. Rogers, “Utilization of remote reprogramming to manage insertable cardiac monitor arrhythmia alert burden,”Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 35, pp. 341 – 345, 2024

work page 2024

[12] [12]

Lessons learned from the development of wireless environmental sensors,

S. Folea and G. Mois, “Lessons learned from the development of wireless environmental sensors,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, pp. 3470–3480, 2020

work page 2020

[13] [13]

Analysis of low-power operation for an environmental monitoring beacon,

T. Santejudean, S. Folea, and G. Mois, “Analysis of low-power operation for an environmental monitoring beacon,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics (AQTR), 2020, pp. 1–5

work page 2020

[14] [14]

Dynamic data advertising and packet loss analysis using ble legacy advertising,

S. Gautam, R. Verma, and S. Kumar, “Dynamic data advertising and packet loss analysis using ble legacy advertising,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3123–3137, 2024

work page 2024

[15] [15]

Anal- ysis of latency performance of bluetooth low energy (ble) networks,

K. Cho, W. Park, M. Hong, G. Park, W. Cho, J. Seo, and K. Han, “Anal- ysis of latency performance of bluetooth low energy (ble) networks,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59–78, 2014

work page 2014

[16] [16]

On performance evaluation of ble 5 in indoor environment: An experimental study,

B. Badihi, M. U. Sheikh, K. Ruttik, and R. J ¨antti, “On performance evaluation of ble 5 in indoor environment: An experimental study,”2020 IEEE 31st Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp. 1–5, 2020

work page 2020

[17] [17]

Veilleux

D. Veilleux. (2018, Jan.) Intro to shock- burst/enhanced shockburst. Nordic DevZone. [Online]. Avail- able: https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/nordic/nordic-blog/b/blog/posts/ intro-to-shockburstenhanced-shockburst

work page 2018

[18] [18]

Wire- less low-latency synchronization for body-worn multi-node systems in sports,

N. Krull, L. Schulthess, M. Magno, L. Benini, and C. Leitner, “Wire- less low-latency synchronization for body-worn multi-node systems in sports,” in2025 IEEE 21st International Conference on Body Sensor Networks (BSN), 2025, pp. 1–4

work page 2025

[19] [19]

Closed-loop transmission power control for reliable and low-power ble communication in dynamic iot settings,

Z. Zhou and H.-W. Huang, “Closed-loop transmission power control for reliable and low-power ble communication in dynamic iot settings,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1216–1228, 2026

work page 2026

[20] [20]

A perspective on time toward wireless 6g,

P. Popovski, F. Chiariotti, K. Huang, A. E. Kalør, M. Kountouris, N. Pappas, and B. Soret, “A perspective on time toward wireless 6g,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 110, no. 8, pp. 1116–1146, 2022

work page 2022

[21] [21]

Reevaluating bluetooth low energy for ingestible electronics,

Z. Zhou, Z. Sun, X. Shen, Y . Li, Z. Shi, Y . Yu, and H. Huang, “Reevaluating bluetooth low energy for ingestible electronics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19241, 2026. [22]MAX30003 Ultra-Low Power, Single-Channel Integrated Biopotential (ECG, R-to-R Detection) AFE, Analog Devices, Inc., 2021, rev. 3. [23]MAX30101: High-Sensitivity Pulse Oximeter and Heart-R...

work page arXiv 2026

[22] [22]

Available: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ ds/MAX30101.pdf [24]MPU-6000 and MPU-6050 Product Specification, InvenSense Inc., 2013, revision 3.4, August 19, 2013

[Online]. Available: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ ds/MAX30101.pdf [24]MPU-6000 and MPU-6050 Product Specification, InvenSense Inc., 2013, revision 3.4, August 19, 2013. [On- line]. Available: https://invensense.tdk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 02/MPU-6000-Datasheet1.pdf

work page 2013

[23] [23]

[Online]

Nordic Semiconductor ASA,Power Profiler Kit II User Guide, v1.0.1, Nordic Semiconductor ASA, Otto Nielsens veg 12, 7052 Trondheim, Norway, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nordicsemi.com/ Software-and-tools/Development-Tools/Power-Profiler-Kit-2

work page 2025

[24] [24]

Overview and evaluation of bluetooth low energy: An emerging low-power wireless technology,

C. Gomez, J. Oller, and J. Aspas, “Overview and evaluation of bluetooth low energy: An emerging low-power wireless technology,”Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 12, pp. 11 734 – 11 753, 2012

work page 2012

[25] [25]

Electrocardiogram sampling frequency range acceptable for heart rate variability analysis,

O. Kwon, J. Jeong, H. Kim, I. H. Kwon, S. Park, J. Kim, and Y . Choi, “Electrocardiogram sampling frequency range acceptable for heart rate variability analysis,”Healthcare Informatics Research, vol. 24, pp. 198 – 206, 2018. [28]Bluetooth Core Specification, Bluetooth SIG, Nov. 2025, prepared by the Core Specification Working Group

work page 2018

[26] [26]

Security and privacy threats for bluetooth low energy in iot and wearable devices: A comprehensive survey,

A. Barua, M. A. A. Alamin, M. S. Hossain, and E. Hossain, “Security and privacy threats for bluetooth low energy in iot and wearable devices: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3, pp. 251–281, 2022

work page 2022

[27] [27]

A survey on bluetooth low energy security and privacy,

M. C ¨asar, T. Pawelke, J. Steffan, and G. Terhorst, “A survey on bluetooth low energy security and privacy,”Comput. Networks, vol. 205, p. 108712, 2022. Ziyao Zhoureceived the B.Eng. degree in Commu- nication Engineering from the University of Elec- tronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China, in 2023, and the M.Sc. degree in Commu- nication E...

work page 2022