4.6 Article

Towards Human Activity Recognition: A Hierarchical Feature Selection Framework

期刊

SENSORS
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s18113629

关键词

activity recognition; hierarchical model; feature selection; information infusion

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61472057]
  2. Science & Technology Innovation Project of Foshan City [2015IT100095]
  3. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of Anhui Province [1704e1002217]
  4. Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities [B14025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The inherent complexity of human physical activities makes it difficult to accurately recognize activities with wearable sensors. To this end, this paper proposes a hierarchical activity recognition framework and two different feature selection methods to improve the recognition performance. Specifically, according to the characteristics of human activities, predefined activities of interest are organized into a hierarchical tree structure, where each internal node represents different groups of activities and each leaf node represents a specific activity label. Then, the proposed feature selection methods are appropriately integrated to optimize the feature space of each node. Finally, we train corresponding classifiers to distinguish different activity groups and to classify a new unseen sample into one of the leaf-nodes in a top-down fashion to predict its activity label. To evaluate the performance of the proposed framework and feature selection methods, we conduct extensive comparative experiments on publicly available datasets and analyze the model complexity. Experimental results show that the proposed method reduces the dimensionality of original feature space and contributes to enhancement of the overall recognition accuracy. In addition, for feature selection, returning multiple activity-specific feature subsets generally outperforms the case of returning a common subset of features for all activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据