In the 2.4 GHz band, the channel of a short-range link is usually selected at one end; in Bluetooth Low Energy, a peripheral’s channel classification is advisory. This paper examines, for one instrumented case, whether the two ends of a link perceive interference similarly. A purpose-built protocol on two nRF52840 devices reported each end’s noise floor once per adaptation window. On a 4.2 m indoor link with one swept narrowband interferer, 656 time-paired windows were obtained. In the 614 quiet windows, the transmitter read a standing +6.30 dB more than the receiver, whereas a co-location control gave a mean offset of 0.66 dB. In the 42 windows within fifteen interference episodes, the difference had a standard deviation of 19.2 dB, and the two ends classified the channel differently in 38. Co-located devices also differed by a median of 9 dB under a directed source, so these differences cannot be attributed wholly to position. With two simultaneously sampled receive chains 60 cm apart, the levels received from a moving source were uncorrelated. A negotiation in which the receiver selects among the transmitter’s candidate channels completed 17 of 17 changes on a quiet bench and 43 of 44 under interference; in all 43, however, it selected the channel that transmitter-only selection would have used. Endpoint perception therefore differed substantially in this configuration, whereas an advantage of the method over simpler alternatives was not demonstrated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sokolov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: