Physical activity recognition using inertial wearable sensors — A review of supervised classification algorithms

The goal of this paper is to compare the performances of various supervised algorithms in classifying physical daily living activities. Six healthy subjects were asked to perform twelve static and dynamic activities such as walking, running, sitting down, standing-up, lying, climbing stairs, etc. Three triaxial accelerometers are used to measure the human movements resulting from each activity. Seven supervised classification techniques are used: K-Nearest Neighbors (K-NN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Classification And Regression Tree (CART), Naive Bayes (NB), and Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). These methods are compared in terms of correct classification rate (Accuracy), Recall, Precision, F-measure and execution time. The 10-fold cross validation is used as a validation procedure. The obtained results show that K-NN gives the best results with 96.26 % of correct classification rate.

[1]  Faicel Chamroukhi,et al.  Joint segmentation of multivariate time series with hidden process regression for human activity recognition , 2013, Neurocomputing.

[2]  Billur Barshan,et al.  Human activity classification with miniature inertial and magnetic sensor signals , 2011, 2011 19th European Signal Processing Conference.

[3]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 1: theoretical background. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[4]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[5]  Paul Lukowicz,et al.  Gesture spotting with body-worn inertial sensors to detect user activities , 2008, Pattern Recognit..

[6]  B. G. Celler,et al.  Classification of basic daily movements using a triaxial accelerometer , 2004, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[7]  A. Bourke,et al.  Fall detection - Principles and Methods , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[8]  David Howard,et al.  A Comparison of Feature Extraction Methods for the Classification of Dynamic Activities From Accelerometer Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Sherif E Hussein,et al.  Intention detection using a neuro-fuzzy EMG classifier. , 2002, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine : the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.

[10]  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.

[11]  A. Nguyen,et al.  Unsupervised Clustering of Free-Living Human Activities using Ambulatory Accelerometry , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

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

[13]  Moonis Ali,et al.  Classification of data patterns using and autoassociative neural network topology , 1989, IEA/AIE '89.

[14]  Aleksandar Milenkovic,et al.  Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation Open Access a Wireless Body Area Network of Intelligent Motion Sensors for Computer Assisted Physical Rehabilitation , 2005 .

[15]  D.B. Popovic,et al.  Machine learning in control of functional electrical stimulation systems for locomotion , 1995, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  Jihong Lee,et al.  Real-Time Motion Capture for a Human Body using Accelerometers , 2001, Robotica.