Comparative study on classifying gait with a single trunk-mounted inertial-magnetic measurement unit

Athletes and their coaches aim for enhancing the sports performance. Collecting data from athletes, transforming them into useful information related to their sports performance (e.g., their type of gait), and transmitting the information to the coaches supports the enhancement. The types of gait standing, walking, and running were often examined. Lack of research remains for the two types of running, jogging and sprinting. In this work, standing, walking, jogging, and sprinting were classified with a single inertial-magnetic measurement unit that was placed at a novel position at the trunk. A comparison was made between classification systems using different combinations of accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer data as well as different classifiers (Naïve Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, Adaptive Boosting). After collecting data from 15 male subjects, the data were preprocessed, features were extracted and selected, and the data were classified. All classification systems were successful. With a mean true positive rate of 95.68% ±1.80%, the classification system using accelerometer and gyroscope data as well as the Naïve Bayes classifier performed best. The classification system can be used for applications in sport and sports performance analysis in particular.

[1]  Peter O’Donoghue,et al.  Research Methods for Sports Performance Analysis , 2010 .

[2]  Peter Laird,et al.  Eyewitness Recollection of Sport Coaches , 2008 .

[3]  Albrecht Schmidt,et al.  Multi-sensor Activity Context Detection for Wearable Computing , 2003, EUSAI.

[4]  Ilkka Korhonen,et al.  Detection of Daily Activities and Sports With Wearable Sensors in Controlled and Uncontrolled Conditions , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.

[5]  Billur Barshan,et al.  Comparative study on classifying human activities with miniature inertial and magnetic sensors , 2010, Pattern Recognit..

[6]  R. Adams Revised Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire. , 1999, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[7]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Guanglie Zhang,et al.  A gait recognition system for rehabilitation based on wearable micro inertial measurement unit , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics.

[9]  Ling Bao,et al.  Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data , 2004, Pervasive.

[10]  Thomas G. Dietterich Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms , 1998, Neural Computation.

[11]  Dominik Schuldhaus,et al.  Hierarchical, Multi-Sensor Based Classification of Daily Life Activities: Comparison with State-of-the-Art Algorithms Using a Benchmark Dataset , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  Nigel H. Lovell,et al.  Accelerometry based classification of gait patterns using empirical mode decomposition , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[13]  B. Ripley,et al.  Pattern Recognition , 1968, Nature.

[14]  A. Rosenblad Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Fifth Edition by James P. Stevens , 2009 .

[15]  Novacheck,et al.  The biomechanics of running. , 1998, Gait & posture.

[16]  J. Stevens Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1986 .

[17]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Activity Recognition from Accelerometer Data , 2005, AAAI.

[18]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Analyzing features for activity recognition , 2005, sOc-EUSAI '05.