4.7 Article

Comparative study on classifying human activities with miniature inertial and magnetic sensors

Journal

PATTERN RECOGNITION
Volume 43, Issue 10, Pages 3605-3620

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2010.04.019

Keywords

Inertial sensors; Gyroscope; Accelerometer; Magnetometer; Activity recognition and classification; Feature extraction; Feature reduction; Bayesian decision making; Rule-based algorithm; Decision tree; Least-squares method; k-Nearest neighbor; Dynamic time warping; Support vector machines; Artificial neural networks

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [EEEAG-109E059]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides a comparative study on the different techniques of classifying human activities that are performed using body-worn miniature inertial and magnetic sensors. The classification techniques implemented and compared in this study are: Bayesian decision making (BDM), a rule-based algorithm (RBA) or decision tree, the least-squares method (LSM), the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (k-NN), dynamic time warping (DTW), support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). Human activities are classified using five sensor units worn on the chest, the arms, and the legs. Each sensor unit comprises a tri-axial gyroscope, a tri-axial accelerometer, and a tri-axial magnetometer. A feature set extracted from the raw sensor data using principal component analysis (PCA) is used in the classification process. A performance comparison of the classification techniques is provided in terms of their correct differentiation rates, confusion matrices, and computational cost, as well as their preprocessing, training, and storage requirements. Three different cross-validation techniques are employed to validate the classifiers. The results indicate that in general, BDM results in the highest correct classification rate with relatively small computational cost. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available