1 / 18

Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data Ling Bao and Stephen S. Intille

Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data Ling Bao and Stephen S. Intille. Presented by: Hong Lu. Key Questions. Can low cost wearable sensors be used for robust, real- time recognition of activity?

judith
Télécharger la présentation

Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data Ling Bao and Stephen S. Intille

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data Ling Bao and Stephen S. Intille Presented by: Hong Lu

  2. Key Questions • Can low cost wearable sensors be used for robust, real- time recognition of activity? • Can training data be acquired from the end user without researcher supervision? • Does recognition require user-specific training data? • Do more sensors improve recognition?

  3. Data Collection • 13 ♂ + 7♀ = 20 subjects , age from 17 to 48 • 20 everyday activities • Subjects unsupervised when generating own training data, both in and outside the lab • What’s the problem of typical laboratory data? WHY? • Often data in lab is collected from researchers as subjects • Lab environments may restrict activity, simplifying recognition ! • Making researchers to label training examples does not scale Recognition rates highly depended on how data is collected 95.6% (laboratory data) VS 66.7% (naturalistic settings)

  4. Data Collection • What’s an accelerometer ? • An accelerometer is a device that measures the vibration, or acceleration of motion of a structure.

  5. Why Accelerometer ? • Many daily activities involve repetitive physical motion of the body or specific postures • E.g. Walking, Running, Scrubbing, Vacuuming • Low cost, tiny, energy efficient • Watch • Phone, mp3 player • Camera • computer • Game controller, the wii remote

  6. Sensor Placement • 5 wireless sensors • Right hip • Wrist • upper arm • Ankle • Thigh • Shack to synchronize

  7. Raw Data

  8. Features • Why we need them ? • Summarize the data bin • Capture useful information • What is the desired characteristics of a good feature ? • removing irrelevant noise • keeping relevant attributes to tell the difference • easy to compute ?

  9. Features • 512 sample windows (6.7s ?), 50% window overlap • Features: • Mean • Energy • Frequency-domain entropy • Correlation Between x, y accelerometer axes each board Between all pair wise combinations of axes on different boards

  10. Classifiers • Tested on decision table, nearest neighbor ( IBL), C4.5 decision tree, and naïve Bayesian classifiers • Machine Learning Toolkit (Witten & Frank, 1999)

  11. Training • Method 1: User-specific training • Train on activity sequence data for each subject • Test on obstacle course data for that subject • Method 2: Leave-one-subject out training • Train on activity sequence and activity data for all subjects but one • Test on obstacle course data for left out subject • Average for all 20 subjects

  12. Results • C45 Decision tree wins • It shows • User-specific training: 71.6 ±7.4 • Leave-one-subject-out training: 84.3 ±5.2 • Why? • Commonalities between people may be more significant than individual variations • Larger training set

  13. Result • Overall, promising • Data collected by subjects themselves without supervision • Data collected both in and outside of laboratory setting • Poorer performance results when… • Activities involve less physically characteristic movements , Activities involve little motion or standing still • Activities involve similar posture/movement (e.g. watching TV, sitting and relaxing)

  14. The dark side • The more sensors you placed, the higher accuracy you may achieved, but … • cost • you look weird • hard to deploy • more computational horse power

  15. Accelerometer Discriminatory Power • Tested C4.5 classifier with using subsets of accelerometers: • Hip, wrist, arm, ankle, thigh, thigh and wrist, hip and wrist • Best single performers: • Thigh (-29.5%) • Hip (-34.1%) • Ankle(-37%)

  16. Accelerometer Discriminatory Power • With only two accelerometers get good performance: • Thigh and wrist (-3.3% compared with all 5) • Hip and wrist (-4.8% compared with all 5)

  17. Overview • The study • Activity recognition: 20 household activities • Sensors: 5 non-wired accelerometers • Data: participants labeled own data • Result • Good performance with decision tree classifier • Subject-specific training data for some activities may not be required • Reasonable accuracy can be achieved with only 2 of 5 accelerometers

  18. Thank you! The End For some slides, I used content of Emmanuel MunguiaTapia’s presentation

More Related