| Literature DB >> 23604031 |
Edmond Mitchell1, David Monaghan, Noel E O'Connor.
Abstract
In this paper we present a framework that allows for the automatic identification of sporting activities using commonly available smartphones. We extract discriminative informational features from smartphone accelerometers using the Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT). Despite the poor quality of their accelerometers, smartphones were used as capture devices due to their prevalence in today's society. Successful classification on this basis potentially makes the technology accessible to both elite and non-elite athletes. Extracted features are used to train different categories of classifiers. No one classifier family has a reportable direct advantage in activity classification problems to date; thus we examine classifiers from each of the most widely used classifier families. We investigate three classification approaches; a commonly used SVM-based approach, an optimized classification model and a fusion of classifiers. We also investigate the effect of changing several of the DWT input parameters, including mother wavelets, window lengths and DWT decomposition levels. During the course of this work we created a challenging sports activity analysis dataset, comprised of soccer and field-hockey activities. The average maximum F-measure accuracy of 87% was achieved using a fusion of classifiers, which was 6% better than a single classifier model and 23% better than a standard SVM approach.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23604031 PMCID: PMC3673139 DOI: 10.3390/s130405317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Location of Smartphone.
Smartphone specifications.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Sampling Rate | 16 Hz | 25 Hz |
| Accelerometer | Tri-axial | Tri-axial |
| Resolution | 8-bit | 8-bit |
Figure 2.DWT decomposition of signal x[n].
Figure 3.System overview of the DWT decomposition and classification process.
Parameter specifications for black-box approach.
| SVM-SMO | db4 | 2 | 5 seconds |
Confusion matrix for Soccer Smartphone data for Experiment 1.
| A1 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A2 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A5 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 1 |
| A6 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 5 |
| A7 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
Confusion matrix for Hockey Smartphone data using Experiment 1.
| A1 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A2 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A5 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 7 |
| A6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 1 | 12 |
| A7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 17 |
Figure 4.Average classifier family accuracy for experiment 2.
Figure 5.Effect of DWT Levels on classification accuracy.
Figure 6.Effect of window length on average accuracy.
Figure 7.Effect of choice of wavelet.
Highest classification accuracies attained for Experiment 2.
| Smartphone | Soccer | NaiveBayes | 6 | rbio1.1 | 3 | 0.799 |
| Smartphone | Hockey | MLP | 6 | bior1.1 | 7 | 0.823 |
Confusion matrix for Football Smartphone data for Experiment 2.
| A1 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A2 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 4 | 1 |
| A6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 12 | 7 |
| A7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 2 | 15 |
Confusion matrix for Hockey Smartphone data for Experiment 2.
| A1 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A2 | 1 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 7 | 4 |
| A6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 15 | 8 |
| A7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 20 |
Figure 8.Average model accuracy for each experiment.
Figure 9.Single activity accuracy results for each approach.
Highest classification accuracies attained.
| Smartphone | Soccer | NaiveBayes | 6 | rbio1.1 | 3 | 0.799 |
| Smartphone | Hockey | MLP | 6 | bior1.1 | 7 | 0.823 |