Advertisement

Cognitive ocean of things: a comprehensive review and future trends

  • Yujie LiEmail author
  • Shinya Takahashi
  • Seiichi Serikawa
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

The scientific and technological revolution in Internet of Things is set off in oceanography. Humans have always observed the ocean outside the ocean to study the ocean. In recent years, it changes have been made into the interior of the ocean and the laboratories have been built on the sea floor. Approximately 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. Ocean of things is expected to be important for disaster prevention, ocean resource exploration, and underwater environmental monitoring. Different from traditional wireless sensor networks, ocean of things has its own unique features, such as low reliability and narrow bandwidth. These features may be great challenges for ocean of things. Furthermore, the integration of artificial intelligence and ocean of things has become a topic of increasing interests for oceanology research fields. Cognitive ocean of things (COT) will become the mainstream of future ocean science and engineering development. In this paper, we provide the definition of COT, and the main contributions of this paper are (1) we review the ocean observing networks all the world; (2) we propose the COT architecture and describe the details of it; (3) important and useful applications are discussed; (4) we point out the future trends of COT researches.

Keywords

Ocean networks Internet of Things Multimedia communication systems 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Industry 4.0: The fourth industrial revolution. https://www.i-scoop.eu/industry-4-0/.
  2. 2.
    Arrott, M., Chave, A., & Farcas, C. (2011). Building transparent data access for ocean observatories: Coordination of US IOOS DMAC with NSFs OOI cyberinfrastructure. In OCEANS (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suyehiro, K., Mikada, H., & Asakwawa, K. (2003). Japanese seafloor observing systems: Present and future. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(3), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Person, R., Favali, P., & Ruhl, H. (2015). ESONET multidisciplinary scientific community to EMSO novel European research infrastructure for ocean observing. In R. Person (Ed.), Seafloor observatories: A new vision of the earth from the abyss (pp. 531–564). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes, C., Best, M., & Johnson, F. (2013). Challenges, benefits, and opportunities in installing and operating cabled ocean observatories: Perspectives from NEPTUNE Canada. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 38(1), 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moloney, J., Hillis, C., Mouy, X., Urazghildiiev, I., & Dakin, T. (2014). Autonomous multichannel acoustic recorders on the VENUS ocean observatory. In Proceedings of the of IEEE oceans (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaneda, Y. (2010). The advanced ocean floor real time monitoring system for mega thrust earthquakes and tsunamis-application of DONET and DONET2 data to seismological research and disaster mitigation. In Proceedings of IEEE oceans (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shim, J., Lee, D., & Kim, S. (2009). Application of a large ocean observation buoy in the middle area of the Yellow Sea. Ocean and Polar Research, 31(4), 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Domingo, M. (2012). An overview of the internet of underwater things. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35, 1879–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demirors, E., Sklivanitis, G., Melodia, T., Batalama, S., & Pados, D. (2015). Software-defined underwater acoustic networks: Toward a high-rate real-time reconfigurable modem. IEEE Communications Magazine, 53(11), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaushal, H., & Kaddoum, G. (2016). Underwater optical wireless communication. IEEE Access, 4, 1518–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mandić, F., Rendulić, I., Mišković, N., & Nađ, Đ. (2016). Underwater object tracking using sonar and USBL measurements. Journal of Sensors.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8070286.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xie, S., Chen, J., Luo, J., Xie, P., & Tang, W. (2012). Detection and tracking of underwater object based on forward-scan sonar. In Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent robotics and applications (pp. 341–347).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, M., Ji, H., Wang, X., Weng, L., & Gong, Z. (2013). Underwater object detection and tracking based on multi-beam sonar image processing. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Snyder, J., Silverman, Y., Bai, Y., & Maclver, M. (2013). Underwater object tracking using electrical impedance tomography. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walther, D., Edgington, D., & Koch, C. (2004). Detection and tracking of objects in underwater video. In Proceedings of the 2004 computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chuang, M., Hwang, J., Ye, J., Huang, S., & Williams, K. (2016). Underwater fish tracking for moving cameras based on deformable multiple kernels. arXiv:1603.01695.
  19. 19.
    Lee, D., Kim, G., Kim, D., Myung, H., & Choi, H. (2012). Vision-based object detection and tracking for autonomous navigation of underwater robots. Ocean Engineering, 48, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IHI. (2014). Power generation using the Kuroshio current. IHI Engineering Review, 46(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pattle, R. (1954). Production of electric power by mixing fresh and salt water in the hydroelectric pile. Nature, 174(4431), 660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitra, U., Choudhary, S., Hover, F., Hummel, R., Kumar, N., Naryanan, S., et al. (2015). Structured sparse methods for active ocean observation systems with communication constraints. IEEE Communications Magazine, 53(11), 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghassemlooy, Z., Zvanovec, S., Khalighi, M., Popoola, W., & Perze, J. (2017). Optical wireless communication systems. Optik, 151, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Han, G., Jiang, J., Shu, L., Xu, Y., & Wang, F. (2012). Localization algorithms of underwater wireless sensor networks. Sensors, 12(2), 2026–2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chandrasekhar, V., Seah, W. K., Choo, Y. S., & Ee, H. V. (2006). Localization in underwater sensor networks: Survey and challenges. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on underwater networks, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 25 September 2006 (pp. 33–40).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, Y. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning: An overview. arXiv:1701.07274.
  27. 27.
    Serikawa, S., & Lu, H. (2014). Underwater image dehazing using joint trilateral filter. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 40(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lu, H., Li, Y., Zhang, L., & Serikawa, S. (2015). Contrast enhancement for image in turbid water. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 32(5), 886–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGillivary, P., & Zykov, V. (2016). Ship-based cloud computing for advancing oceanographic research capabilities. Proceedings of IEEE Oceans, 2016, 1–6.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weng, T., Chen, Y., & Lu, H. (in press). On parallelization of image dehazing with OpenMP. International Journal of High Performance Computing and Networking, 1–12.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lu, H., Wang, D., Li, Y., Li, J., Li, X., Kim, H., Serikawa, S., & Humar, I. (2019). CONet: A cognitive ocean network. IEEE Wireless Communications, 1–8.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stack, J. (2011). Automation for underwater mine recognition: Current trends and future strategy. Proceedings of SPIE, 80170K, 1–21.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dobeck, G. J., Hyland, J. C., & Smedley, L. (1997). Automated detection/classification of sea mines in sonar imagery. Proceedings of SPIE, 3079, 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sternlicht, D. D., Dikeman, R. D., Lemonds, D. W., Korporaal, M. T., & Teranishi, A. M. (2003). Target confirmation architecture for a buried object scanning sonar. Proceedings of IEEE OCEANS, 1, 1–9.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nevis, A., Bryan, J., Taylor, J. S., & Cordes, B. (2002). Object detection using a background anomaly approach for electro-optic identification sensors. http://www.dtic.mil, ADA749176. Accessed 12 June 2018.
  36. 36.
    Redmon, J., & Farhadi, A. (2017). YOLO9000: Better, faster, stronger. In Proceedings of the CVPR (pp. 7263–7271).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lu, H., Li, Y., Chen, M., Kim, H., & Serikawa, S. (2018). Brain intelligence: Go beyond artificial intelligence. Mobile Networks and Application, 23, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manjula, R., & Manvi, S. (2013). Coverage optimization based sensor deployment by using PSO for anti-submarine detection in UWASNs. In Proceedings of the international symposium on ocean eletronics, Athani, India (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cayirci, E., Tezcan, H., Dogan, Y., & Coskun, V. (2006). Wireless sensor networks for underwater surveillance systems. Ad Hoc Networks, 4, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kanazawa, T. (2013). Japan Trench earthquake and tsunami monitoring network of cable-linked 150 ocean bottom observatories and its impact to earth disaster science. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE international underwater technology symposium (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringFukuoka UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.School of EngineeringKyushu Institute of TechnologyKitakyushuJapan

Personalised recommendations