## 5 Comparison of MAC Protocols for IBSN
(\(-\)) indicates that the MAC protocol compromised reliability to improve other parameters, such as energy-efficiency and throughput. (\(O\)) indicates that the MAC protocol was not designed to provide reliability in highly dynamic link quality. Overhead is the amount of additional data that is required apart from the payload to successfully establish a link between the transmitting node and the receiving node. (\(+\)) for software overhead indicates that the MAC protocol aims at minimal management phase data communication between the coordinator and still achieves better performance in terms of throughput and reliability. (\(-\)) indicates otherwise. (\(O\)) indicates that the MAC protocol has no additions in the overhead in relation to the conventional overheads. Throughput is the amount of information bits received per second at the receiver. (\(+\)) for throughput indicates that the main aim of the protocol was to improve the throughput of the network and (\(-\)) indicates otherwise. (\(O\)) indicates that the throughput aspect of the MAC protocol was not explicitly available. Low latency is the amount of time required to establish a link before any useful data transfer. (\(+\)) for latency indicates that the MAC protocol is designed to achieve low latency for each transmission and (\(-\)) indicates otherwise. (\(O\)) indicates that the latency aspect of the MAC protocol was not explicitly available. Hardware complexity is additional hardware components such as WuR that are required to achieve the intended performance of the MAC protocol. (\(+\)) indicates that the MAC protocol requires additional hardware other than the main radio to achieve better performance and (\(-\)) indicates otherwise. (\(O\)) indicates that the latency aspect of the MAC protocol was not explicitly available. All MAC protocols mentioned in Table 11 are compared based on the requirements of IBSN applications, while none of them are explicitly developed for IBSN applications. Although some of the protocols are developed for general WSN application, they are still considered in our comparison since their features meet the requirements of the IBSN applications. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**MAC Protocol**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Features**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Energy-** \\ **Efficiency** \\ \end{tabular} & **Reliability** & **Overhead** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Effective-** \\ **Throughput** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Low-** \\ **Latency** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Hardware** \\ **Complexity** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Access** \\ **Mechanism** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline NICT-MAC [60] & & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2014 & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(O\) & \(+\) & Slotted ALOHA + WuR \\ IMC-MAC [61] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2009 & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(O\) & ALOHA + TDMA + WuR \\ Miller-MAC [62] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2005 & \(+\) & \(O\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & TDMA + CSMA + WuR \\ RTWAC[63] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2009 & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(+\) & TDMA + CSMA + WuR \\ PE-MAC [64] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2011 & \(O\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & TDMA + CSMA + WuR \\ ULPA-MAC [65] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2013 & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(O\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & CSMA + WuR \\ WuR MAC [66] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2004 & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(O\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(O\) & CSMA + WuR \\ T-MAC [67] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2003 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & CSMA + WuR \\ TBCD-TDM [68] & & & & & & & & \\ Y-2009 & \(+\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(+\) & TDMA + WuR \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: _Cont._