4.6 Article

Validation of an Activity Type Recognition Model Classifying Daily Physical Behavior in Older Adults: The HAR70+Model

期刊

SENSORS
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s23052368

关键词

older adults; physical activity; daily physical behavior; accelerometer; walking aids; free-living; human activity recognition; machine learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activity monitoring combined with machine learning can provide detailed knowledge about daily physical behavior in older adults. This study evaluated the performance of two machine learning models in classifying daily physical behavior in older adults, and found that overall accuracy was high for both models.
Activity monitoring combined with machine learning (ML) methods can contribute to detailed knowledge about daily physical behavior in older adults. The current study (1) evaluated the performance of an existing activity type recognition ML model (HARTH), based on data from healthy young adults, for classifying daily physical behavior in fit-to-frail older adults, (2) compared the performance with a ML model (HAR70+) that included training data from older adults, and (3) evaluated the ML models on older adults with and without walking aids. Eighteen older adults aged 70-95 years who ranged widely in physical function, including usage of walking aids, were equipped with a chest-mounted camera and two accelerometers during a semi-structured free-living protocol. Labeled accelerometer data from video analysis was used as ground truth for the classification of walking, standing, sitting, and lying identified by the ML models. Overall accuracy was high for both the HARTH model (91%) and the HAR70+ model (94%). The performance was lower for those using walking aids in both models, however, the overall accuracy improved from 87% to 93% in the HAR70+ model. The validated HAR70+ model contributes to more accurate classification of daily physical behavior in older adults that is essential for future research.

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