My table is too wide. How do I make make it fit within the width of the textblock?

Question

\begin{table*}    
\begin{center}   
\caption{Comparison of existing methods using infrared array sensor.}   
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \\ \toprule         
{Study} & {IR sensor (resolution)} & {No. of sensors} & {Position of the sensor} & {Methods} & {Accuracy} & {limitations} \\ \hline        
Mashiyama et al.\cite{Mashiyama_2014} & $8 \times 8$ & 1 & Ceiling & SVM & above 94\% & Very limited activity in small area, no transition of activity detection \\ \midrule        
Mashiyama et al.\cite{Mashiyama_2015_2} & $8\times 8$ & 1 & Ceiling & k-NN & 94\% & Less-effective feature extraction methods  \\ \midrule        
Kobayashi et al\cite{Kobayashi_2018} & $8\times 8$ & 2 & Ceiling, Wall & SVM & above 90\% & Particular positions difficult to differentiate the activity due reactive pixels \\ \midrule      
Xiyui  et al.\cite{Fan_2017} & $8\times 8$ & 1 & Wall & LSTM, GRU & 75\% and 85\% & Very limited perform only in parallel and perpendicular to the sensor     \\ \midrule        
Taniguchi et al.\cite{Taniguchi_2014} & $16\times 16$ & 2 & Ceiling, Wall & Time series analysis & 72\% & Old approach less accuracy \\ \midrule        
Taramasco et al.\cite{Taramasco_2018}& $1\times 16$ & 2 & Opposite corner of the room & LSTM, GRU, Bi-LSTM & 93\% & Its highly computation cost to implement to the devices  \\\bottomrule           
\end{tabular}\label{tabular_1}    
\end{center}
\end{table*}

The table in the following image is somewhat close to what I'm looking to achieve.

Answer 1

You need to allow line breaks in all seven columns, but the c column type doesn't allow that. I suggest you load the tabularx package and set up versions of the package's X column type that allow to vary the relative column widths. Observe that in the example below, the relative widths of the 7 columns adds up to 7. I would also use fewer \midrule directives; in fact, most of them can be replaced with \addlinespace.

\documentclass{article}  % choose a suitable document class
\usepackage[a4paper,margin=2.5cm]{geometry} % set page parameters suitably
\usepackage{booktabs,tabularx,ragged2e}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\Centering\hspace{0pt}\hsize=#1\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\RaggedRight\hspace{0pt}\hsize=#1\hsize}X}
\begin{document}
\begin{table}

\setlength\tabcolsep{4pt}
\caption{Comparison of existing methods using infrared array sensor.}

\label{tab:comparison}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{} L{0.9} C{0.9}C{0.55}C{0.9}C{0.9}C{0.8} L{2.05} @{}} \ 
\toprule

Study & IR sensor (resolution) & No.\ of sensors & Position of sensor & Methods & Accuracy & Limitations \ \midrule

Mashiyama et al.\cite{Mashiyama_2014} & $8 \times 8$ & 1 & Ceiling & SVM & above 94% & Very limited activity in small area, no transition of activity detection \ 
\addlinespace %\midrule

Mashiyama et al.\cite{Mashiyama_2015_2} & $8\times 8$ & 1 & Ceiling & k-NN & 94% & Less-effective feature extraction methods  \ 
\addlinespace %\midrule

Kobayashi et al\cite{Kobayashi_2018} & $8\times 8$ & 2 & Ceiling, Wall & SVM & above 90% & Particular positions difficult to differentiate the activity due reactive pixels \ 
\addlinespace %\midrule

Xiyui  et al.\cite{Fan_2017} & $8\times 8$ & 1 & Wall & LSTM, GRU & 75% and 85% & Very limited perform only in parallel and perpendicular to the sensor \ 
\addlinespace %\midrule

Taniguchi et al.\cite{Taniguchi_2014} & $16\times 16$ & 2 & Ceiling, Wall & Time series analysis & 72% & Old approach less accuracy \ 
\addlinespace %\midrule

Taramasco et al.\cite{Taramasco_2018}& $1\times 16$ & 2 & Opposite corner of the room & LSTM, GRU, Bi-LSTM & 93% & Its highly computation cost to implement to the devices  \ 
\bottomrule

\end{tabularx}

\end{table}
\end{document}

Answer 2

With use of the mdwtab package as supplement to nice @Mico answer (+1):

\documentclass[twocolumn]{article}  % choose a suitable document class
\usepackage[a4paper,margin=2.5cm]{geometry} % set page parameters suitably
\usepackage{ragged2e}
\usepackage{mdwtab,tabularx} % <---
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\Centering\hspace{0pt}\hsize=#1\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\RaggedRight\hspace{0pt}\hsize=#1\hsize}X}
\usepackage{stfloats}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\begin{document}
    \begin{table*}[b]
\caption{Comparison of existing methods using infrared array sensor.}
\label{tabular_1}
    \centering
    \setlength\tabcolsep{4pt}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{} L{0.9} C{0.9}C{0.55}C{0.9}C{0.9}C{0.8} L{2.05} @{}}
    \hlx[1pt]{hv}       % <---
{Study} & {IR sensor (resolution)} & {No. of sensors} & {Position of the sensor} & {Methods} & {Accuracy} & {limitations} \\
    \hlx[0.5pt]{vhv}    % <---
Mashiyama et al.\cite{Mashiyama_2014} & $8 \times 8$ & 1 & Ceiling & SVM & above 94\% & Very limited activity in small area, no transition of activity detection \\
    \hlx{vhv}           % <---
Mashiyama et al.\cite{Mashiyama_2015_2} & $8\times 8$ & 1 & Ceiling & k-NN & 94\% & Less-effective feature extraction methods  \\
    \hlx{vhv}
Kobayashi et al\cite{Kobayashi_2018} & $8\times 8$ & 2 & Ceiling, Wall & SVM & above 90\% & Particular positions difficult to differentiate the activity due reactive pixels \\
    \hlx{vhv}
Xiyui  et al.\cite{Fan_2017} & $8\times 8$ & 1 & Wall & LSTM, GRU & 75\% and 85\% & Very limited perform only in parallel and perpendicular to the sensor     \\
    \hlx{vhv}
Taniguchi et al.\cite{Taniguchi_2014} & $16\times 16$ & 2 & Ceiling, Wall & Time series analysis & 72\% & Old approach less accuracy \\
        \hlx{vhv}
Taramasco et al.\cite{Taramasco_2018}& $1\times 16$ & 2 & Opposite corner of the room & LSTM, GRU, Bi-LSTM & 93\% & Its highly computation cost to implement to the devices  \\
    \hlx[1pt]{vh}       % <---
\end{tabularx}
    \end{table*}
\lipsum
\end{document}