Cargando…
A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors
The sliding window technique is widely used to segment inertial sensor signals, i.e., accelerometers and gyroscopes, for activity recognition. In this technique, the sensor signals are partitioned into fix sized time windows which can be of two types: (1) non-overlapping windows, in which time windo...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6891351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31752158 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19225026 |
_version_ | 1783475793123344384 |
---|---|
author | Dehghani, Akbar Sarbishei, Omid Glatard, Tristan Shihab, Emad |
author_facet | Dehghani, Akbar Sarbishei, Omid Glatard, Tristan Shihab, Emad |
author_sort | Dehghani, Akbar |
collection | PubMed |
description | The sliding window technique is widely used to segment inertial sensor signals, i.e., accelerometers and gyroscopes, for activity recognition. In this technique, the sensor signals are partitioned into fix sized time windows which can be of two types: (1) non-overlapping windows, in which time windows do not intersect, and (2) overlapping windows, in which they do. There is a generalized idea about the positive impact of using overlapping sliding windows on the performance of recognition systems in Human Activity Recognition. In this paper, we analyze the impact of overlapping sliding windows on the performance of Human Activity Recognition systems with different evaluation techniques, namely, subject-dependent cross validation and subject-independent cross validation. Our results show that the performance improvements regarding overlapping windowing reported in the literature seem to be associated with the underlying limitations of subject-dependent cross validation. Furthermore, we do not observe any performance gain from the use of such technique in conjunction with subject-independent cross validation. We conclude that when using subject-independent cross validation, non-overlapping sliding windows reach the same performance as sliding windows. This result has significant implications on the resource usage for training the human activity recognition systems. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6891351 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68913512019-12-12 A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors Dehghani, Akbar Sarbishei, Omid Glatard, Tristan Shihab, Emad Sensors (Basel) Article The sliding window technique is widely used to segment inertial sensor signals, i.e., accelerometers and gyroscopes, for activity recognition. In this technique, the sensor signals are partitioned into fix sized time windows which can be of two types: (1) non-overlapping windows, in which time windows do not intersect, and (2) overlapping windows, in which they do. There is a generalized idea about the positive impact of using overlapping sliding windows on the performance of recognition systems in Human Activity Recognition. In this paper, we analyze the impact of overlapping sliding windows on the performance of Human Activity Recognition systems with different evaluation techniques, namely, subject-dependent cross validation and subject-independent cross validation. Our results show that the performance improvements regarding overlapping windowing reported in the literature seem to be associated with the underlying limitations of subject-dependent cross validation. Furthermore, we do not observe any performance gain from the use of such technique in conjunction with subject-independent cross validation. We conclude that when using subject-independent cross validation, non-overlapping sliding windows reach the same performance as sliding windows. This result has significant implications on the resource usage for training the human activity recognition systems. MDPI 2019-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6891351/ /pubmed/31752158 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19225026 Text en © 2019 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 Dehghani, Akbar Sarbishei, Omid Glatard, Tristan Shihab, Emad A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors |
title | A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors |
title_full | A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors |
title_fullStr | A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors |
title_full_unstemmed | A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors |
title_short | A Quantitative Comparison of Overlapping and Non-Overlapping Sliding Windows for Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors |
title_sort | quantitative comparison of overlapping and non-overlapping sliding windows for human activity recognition using inertial sensors |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6891351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31752158 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19225026 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dehghaniakbar aquantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT sarbisheiomid aquantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT glatardtristan aquantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT shihabemad aquantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT dehghaniakbar quantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT sarbisheiomid quantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT glatardtristan quantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors AT shihabemad quantitativecomparisonofoverlappingandnonoverlappingslidingwindowsforhumanactivityrecognitionusinginertialsensors |