Cargando…

Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys

Locomotion is an important welfare and health trait in turkey production. Current breeding values for locomotion are often based on subjective scoring. Sensor technologies could be applied to obtain objective evaluation of turkey gait. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) measure acceleration and rotat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bouwman, Aniek, Savchuk, Anatolii, Abbaspourghomi, Abouzar, Visser, Bram
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32265981
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00207
_version_ 1783510832312745984
author Bouwman, Aniek
Savchuk, Anatolii
Abbaspourghomi, Abouzar
Visser, Bram
author_facet Bouwman, Aniek
Savchuk, Anatolii
Abbaspourghomi, Abouzar
Visser, Bram
author_sort Bouwman, Aniek
collection PubMed
description Locomotion is an important welfare and health trait in turkey production. Current breeding values for locomotion are often based on subjective scoring. Sensor technologies could be applied to obtain objective evaluation of turkey gait. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) measure acceleration and rotational velocity, which makes them attractive devices for gait analysis. The aim of this study was to compare three different methods for step detection from IMU data from turkeys. This is an essential step for future feature extraction for the evaluation of turkey locomotion. Data from turkeys walking through a corridor with IMUs attached to each upper leg were annotated manually. We evaluated change point detection, local extrema approach, and gradient boosting machine in terms of step detection and precision of start and end point of the steps. All three methods were successful in step detection, but local extrema approach showed more false detections. In terms of precision of start and end point of steps, change point detection performed poorly due to significant irregular delay, while gradient boosting machine was most precise. For the allowed distance to the annotated steps of 0.2 s, the precision of gradient boosting machine was 0.81 and the recall was 0.84, which is much better in comparison to the other two methods (<0.61). At an allowed distance of 1 s, performance of the three models was similar. Gradient boosting machine was identified as the most accurate for signal segmentation with a final goal to extract information about turkey gait; however, it requires an annotated training dataset.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7096551
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70965512020-04-07 Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys Bouwman, Aniek Savchuk, Anatolii Abbaspourghomi, Abouzar Visser, Bram Front Genet Genetics Locomotion is an important welfare and health trait in turkey production. Current breeding values for locomotion are often based on subjective scoring. Sensor technologies could be applied to obtain objective evaluation of turkey gait. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) measure acceleration and rotational velocity, which makes them attractive devices for gait analysis. The aim of this study was to compare three different methods for step detection from IMU data from turkeys. This is an essential step for future feature extraction for the evaluation of turkey locomotion. Data from turkeys walking through a corridor with IMUs attached to each upper leg were annotated manually. We evaluated change point detection, local extrema approach, and gradient boosting machine in terms of step detection and precision of start and end point of the steps. All three methods were successful in step detection, but local extrema approach showed more false detections. In terms of precision of start and end point of steps, change point detection performed poorly due to significant irregular delay, while gradient boosting machine was most precise. For the allowed distance to the annotated steps of 0.2 s, the precision of gradient boosting machine was 0.81 and the recall was 0.84, which is much better in comparison to the other two methods (<0.61). At an allowed distance of 1 s, performance of the three models was similar. Gradient boosting machine was identified as the most accurate for signal segmentation with a final goal to extract information about turkey gait; however, it requires an annotated training dataset. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7096551/ /pubmed/32265981 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00207 Text en Copyright © 2020 Bouwman, Savchuk, Abbaspourghomi and Visser. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Genetics
Bouwman, Aniek
Savchuk, Anatolii
Abbaspourghomi, Abouzar
Visser, Bram
Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys
title Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys
title_full Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys
title_fullStr Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys
title_full_unstemmed Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys
title_short Automated Step Detection in Inertial Measurement Unit Data From Turkeys
title_sort automated step detection in inertial measurement unit data from turkeys
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32265981
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00207
work_keys_str_mv AT bouwmananiek automatedstepdetectionininertialmeasurementunitdatafromturkeys
AT savchukanatolii automatedstepdetectionininertialmeasurementunitdatafromturkeys
AT abbaspourghomiabouzar automatedstepdetectionininertialmeasurementunitdatafromturkeys
AT visserbram automatedstepdetectionininertialmeasurementunitdatafromturkeys