| Literature DB >> 29351223 |
Xiaomin Kang1, Baoqi Huang2, Guodong Qi3.
Abstract
Recently, with the development of artificial intelligence technologies and the popularity of mobile devices, walking detection and step counting have gained much attention since they play an important role in the fields of equipment positioning, saving energy, behavior recognition, etc. In this paper, a novel algorithm is proposed to simultaneously detect walking motion and count steps through unconstrained smartphones in the sense that the smartphone placement is not only arbitrary but also alterable. On account of the periodicity of the walking motion and sensitivity of gyroscopes, the proposed algorithm extracts the frequency domain features from three-dimensional (3D) angular velocities of a smartphone through FFT (fast Fourier transform) and identifies whether its holder is walking or not irrespective of its placement. Furthermore, the corresponding step frequency is recursively updated to evaluate the step count in real time. Extensive experiments are conducted by involving eight subjects and different walking scenarios in a realistic environment. It is shown that the proposed method achieves the precision of 93.76 % and recall of 93.65 % for walking detection, and its overall performance is significantly better than other well-known methods. Moreover, the accuracy of step counting by the proposed method is 95.74 % , and is better than both of the several well-known counterparts and commercial products.Entities:
Keywords: smartphone; step counting; walking detection
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29351223 PMCID: PMC5796454 DOI: 10.3390/s18010297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The 3D data derived by the gyroscope of a smartphone placed in three different positions. The horizontal axes denote time.
Figure 2The flow diagram of the walking detection and step counting algorithm.
Figure 3The spectrums of the angular velocities with respect to six different activities.
Figure 4The spectrums of the accelerations with respect to six different activities.
Figure 5The spectrums of the angular velocities produced by switching among different smartphone placement.
Figure 6The screenshots of two Android apps. (a) sensory data collection; (b) step counter using the proposed method.
The symbols for different daily activities in the first scenario.
| Symbol | Daily Activities |
|---|---|
| A | Standing with the smartphone in the trousers’ front pocket |
| B | Taking out the smartphone from the trousers’ front pocket |
| C | Standing and holding the smartphone in the hands |
| D | Walking on the flat ground with the smartphone in the swinging hand |
| E | Climbing the stairs with the smartphone in the swinging hand |
| F | Standing and typing |
| G | Walking on the flat ground with the smartphone in the trousers’ front pocket |
| H | Climbing stairs with the smartphone in the trousers’ front pocket |
| I | Sitting down with the smartphone in the hand |
The symbols for different walking activities in the second scenario.
| Symbol | Different Walking Activities |
|---|---|
| J | Continuously walking on the flat ground with the smartphone in the swinging hand |
| K | Continuously walking on the flat ground with the smartphone in the trousers’ front pocket |
| L | Intermittently walking on the flat ground with the smartphone in the swinging hand |
| M | Intermittently walking on flat ground with the smartphone in the trousers’ front pocket |
| N | Continuously climbing the stairs with the smartphone in the swinging hand |
| O | Continuously climbing the stairs with the smartphone in the trousers’ front pocket |
Parameter values used by different methods in the experiments.
| Method | Frequency/Time | Window Size (s) | Sliding Distance (s) | Threshold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed | Frequency |
|
| 10 |
| FFT+ACC | Frequency |
|
| 22 |
| STFT | Frequency | 3 |
| 20 |
| STD_TH | Time |
|
|
|
| AC | Time | [ | [ |
|
| PD | Time |
|
| [ |
| FA | Frequency |
|
| [ |
(g is the gravity unit.)
The results of walking detection in the first scenario.
| NO. | Proposed | FFT+ACC | STD_TH | STFT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P (%) | R (%) | P (%) | R (%) | P (%) | R (%) | P (%) | R (%) | |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 7The walking detection results of one subject by using different methods in the first scenario.
The accuracies of different step counting methods and products in the second scenario.
| Method. | J | K | L | M | N | O | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (%) | A (%) | A (%) | A (%) | A (%) | A (%) | A (%) | |
| Proposed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pacer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spring Run |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LeDongLi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|