4.6 Article

Exploratory Data Analysis of Acceleration Signals to Select Light-Weight and Accurate Features for Real-Time Activity Recognition on Smartphones

期刊

SENSORS
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 13099-13122

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s131013099

关键词

accelerometer sensor; smartphone; context-awareness; activity recognition; expolatory data analysis; feature extraction

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF)
  2. Korea government(MSIP) [2010-0028631]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0028631] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smartphone-based activity recognition (SP-AR) recognizes users' activities using the embedded accelerometer sensor. Only a small number of previous works can be classified as online systems, i.e., the whole process (pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification) is performed on the device. Most of these online systems use either a high sampling rate (SR) or long data-window (DW) to achieve high accuracy, resulting in short battery life or delayed system response, respectively. This paper introduces a real-time/online SP-AR system that solves this problem. Exploratory data analysis was performed on acceleration signals of 6 activities, collected from 30 subjects, to show that these signals are generated by an autoregressive (AR) process, and an accurate AR-model in this case can be built using a low SR (20 Hz) and a small DW (3 s). The high within class variance resulting from placing the phone at different positions was reduced using kernel discriminant analysis to achieve position-independent recognition. Neural networks were used as classifiers. Unlike previous works, true subject-independent evaluation was performed, where 10 new subjects evaluated the system at their homes for 1 week. The results show that our features outperformed three commonly used features by 40% in terms of accuracy for the given SR and DW.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据