Cargando…
Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors
Human Activity Recognition (HAR) refers to an emerging area of interest for medical, military, and security applications. However, the identification of the features to be used for activity classification and recognition is still an open point. The aim of this study was to compare two different feat...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308535/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30501111 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18124189 |
_version_ | 1783383211909316608 |
---|---|
author | Rosati, Samanta Balestra, Gabriella Knaflitz, Marco |
author_facet | Rosati, Samanta Balestra, Gabriella Knaflitz, Marco |
author_sort | Rosati, Samanta |
collection | PubMed |
description | Human Activity Recognition (HAR) refers to an emerging area of interest for medical, military, and security applications. However, the identification of the features to be used for activity classification and recognition is still an open point. The aim of this study was to compare two different feature sets for HAR. Particularly, we compared a set including time, frequency, and time-frequency domain features widely used in literature (FeatSet_A) with a set of time-domain features derived by considering the physical meaning of the acquired signals (FeatSet_B). The comparison of the two sets were based on the performances obtained using four machine learning classifiers. Sixty-one healthy subjects were asked to perform seven different daily activities wearing a MIMU-based device. Each signal was segmented using a 5-s window and for each window, 222 and 221 variables were extracted for the FeatSet_A and FeatSet_B respectively. Each set was reduced using a Genetic Algorithm (GA) simultaneously performing feature selection and classifier optimization. Our results showed that Support Vector Machine achieved the highest performances using both sets (97.1% and 96.7% for FeatSet_A and FeatSet_B respectively). However, FeatSet_B allows to better understand alterations of the biomechanical behavior in more complex situations, such as when applied to pathological subjects. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6308535 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63085352019-01-04 Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors Rosati, Samanta Balestra, Gabriella Knaflitz, Marco Sensors (Basel) Article Human Activity Recognition (HAR) refers to an emerging area of interest for medical, military, and security applications. However, the identification of the features to be used for activity classification and recognition is still an open point. The aim of this study was to compare two different feature sets for HAR. Particularly, we compared a set including time, frequency, and time-frequency domain features widely used in literature (FeatSet_A) with a set of time-domain features derived by considering the physical meaning of the acquired signals (FeatSet_B). The comparison of the two sets were based on the performances obtained using four machine learning classifiers. Sixty-one healthy subjects were asked to perform seven different daily activities wearing a MIMU-based device. Each signal was segmented using a 5-s window and for each window, 222 and 221 variables were extracted for the FeatSet_A and FeatSet_B respectively. Each set was reduced using a Genetic Algorithm (GA) simultaneously performing feature selection and classifier optimization. Our results showed that Support Vector Machine achieved the highest performances using both sets (97.1% and 96.7% for FeatSet_A and FeatSet_B respectively). However, FeatSet_B allows to better understand alterations of the biomechanical behavior in more complex situations, such as when applied to pathological subjects. MDPI 2018-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6308535/ /pubmed/30501111 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18124189 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Rosati, Samanta Balestra, Gabriella Knaflitz, Marco Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors |
title | Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors |
title_full | Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors |
title_short | Comparison of Different Sets of Features for Human Activity Recognition by Wearable Sensors |
title_sort | comparison of different sets of features for human activity recognition by wearable sensors |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308535/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30501111 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18124189 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rosatisamanta comparisonofdifferentsetsoffeaturesforhumanactivityrecognitionbywearablesensors AT balestragabriella comparisonofdifferentsetsoffeaturesforhumanactivityrecognitionbywearablesensors AT knaflitzmarco comparisonofdifferentsetsoffeaturesforhumanactivityrecognitionbywearablesensors |