All for one or one for all? Combining heterogeneous features for activity spotting

Choosing the right feature for motion based activity spotting is not a trivial task. Often, features derived by intuition or that proved to work well in previous work are used. While feature selection algorithms allow automatic decision, definition of features remains a manual task. We conduct a comparative study of features with very different origin. To this end, we propose a new type of features based on polynomial approximation of signals. The new feature type is compared to features used routinely for motion based activity recognition as well as to recently proposed body-model based features. Experiments were performed on three different, large datasets allowing a thorough, in-depth analysis. They not only show the respective strengths of the different feature types but also their complementarity resulting in improved performance through combination. It shows that each feature type with its individual and complementary strengths and weaknesses can improve results by combination.

[1]  Michel Verhaegen,et al.  ECG Segmentation Using Time-Warping , 1997, IDA.

[2]  Y. Freund,et al.  Discussion of the Paper \additive Logistic Regression: a Statistical View of Boosting" By , 2000 .

[3]  Eamonn J. Keogh,et al.  An online algorithm for segmenting time series , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[4]  Eamonn J. Keogh,et al.  Segmenting Time Series: A Survey and Novel Approach , 2002 .

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

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

[7]  Gerhard Tröster,et al.  Detection of eating and drinking arm gestures using inertial body-worn sensors , 2005, Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC'05).

[8]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  A Hybrid Discriminative/Generative Approach for Modeling Human Activities , 2005, IJCAI.

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

[10]  Irfan A. Essa,et al.  Discovering Characteristic Actions from On-Body Sensor Data , 2006, 2006 10th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[11]  Paul Lukowicz,et al.  Combining Motion Sensors and Ultrasonic Hands Tracking for Continuous Activity Recognition in a Maintenance Scenario , 2006, 2006 10th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[12]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Scalable Recognition of Daily Activities with Wearable Sensors , 2007, LoCA.

[13]  Daniel Lemire,et al.  A Better Alternative to Piecewise Linear Time Series Segmentation , 2006, SDM.

[14]  David Minnen,et al.  Recognizing Soldier Activities in the Field , 2007, BSN.

[15]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Sharing Visual Features for Multiclass and Multiview Object Detection , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[16]  Paul Lukowicz,et al.  WearIT@work: Toward Real-World Industrial Wearable Computing , 2007, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[17]  Paul Lukowicz,et al.  Using a complex multi-modal on-body sensor system for activity spotting , 2008, 2008 12th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[18]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Multi Activity Recognition Based on Bodymodel-Derived Primitives , 2009, LoCA.

[19]  Bernhard Sick,et al.  On-line motif detection in time series with SwiftMotif , 2009, Pattern Recognit..

[20]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  An Analysis of Sensor-Oriented vs. Model-Based Activity Recognition , 2009, 2009 International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[21]  Bernhard Sick,et al.  Online Segmentation of Time Series Based on Polynomial Least-Squares Approximations , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[22]  Dominik Fisch,et al.  SwiftRule: Mining Comprehensible Classification Rules for Time Series Analysis , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.