Literature DB >> 29454542

Classifying running speed conditions using a single wearable sensor: Optimal segmentation and feature extraction methods.

Lauren C Benson1, Christian A Clermont2, Sean T Osis3, Dylan Kobsar4, Reed Ferber5.   

Abstract

Accelerometers have been used to classify running patterns, but classification accuracy and computational load depends on signal segmentation and feature extraction. Stride-based segmentation relies on identifying gait events, a step avoided by using window-based segmentation. For each segment, discrete points can be extracted from the accelerometer signal, or advanced features can be computed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine how different segmentation and feature extraction methods influence the accuracy and computational load of classifying running conditions. Forty-four runners ran at their preferred speed and 25% faster than preferred while an accelerometer at the lower back recorded 3D accelerations. Computational load was determined as the accelerometer signal was segmented into single and five strides, and corresponding small and large windows, with discrete points extracted from the single stride segments and advanced features computed from all four segment types. Each feature set was used to classify speed conditions and classification accuracy was recorded. Computational load and classification accuracy were compared across all feature sets using a repeated-measures MANOVA, with follow-up t-tests to compare feature type (discrete vs. advanced), segmentation method (stride- vs. window-based), and segment size (small vs. large), using a Bonferroni-adjusted α = 0.003. The five-stride (97.49 (±4.57)%) and large-window advanced (97.23 (±5.51)%) feature sets produced the greatest classification accuracy, but the large-window advanced feature set had a lower computational load (0.0041 (±0.0002)s) than the stride-based feature sets. Therefore, using a few advanced features and large overlapping window sizes yields the best performance of both classification accuracy and computational load.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Accelerometer; Machine learning; Running; Wearable sensors

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29454542     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.01.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  8 in total

1.  Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rachel Mason; Liam T Pearson; Gillian Barry; Fraser Young; Oisin Lennon; Alan Godfrey; Samuel Stuart
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2022-10-15       Impact factor: 11.928

2.  Recent Machine Learning Progress in Lower Limb Running Biomechanics With Wearable Technology: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Liangliang Xiang; Alan Wang; Yaodong Gu; Liang Zhao; Vickie Shim; Justin Fernandez
Journal:  Front Neurorobot       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 3.493

3.  Between-Day Reliability of Commonly Used IMU Features during a Fatiguing Run and the Effect of Speed.

Authors:  Hannah L Dimmick; Cody R van Rassel; Martin J MacInnis; Reed Ferber
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-29       Impact factor: 3.847

4.  Gait Variability Using Waist- and Ankle-Worn Inertial Measurement Units in Healthy Older Adults.

Authors:  Timo Rantalainen; Laura Karavirta; Henrikki Pirkola; Taina Rantanen; Vesa Linnamo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Wearable Sensor Data to Track Subject-Specific Movement Patterns Related to Clinical Outcomes Using a Machine Learning Approach.

Authors:  Dylan Kobsar; Reed Ferber
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 6.  Wearable Multi-Functional Sensing Technology for Healthcare Smart Detection.

Authors:  Xu Zeng; Hai-Tao Deng; Dan-Liang Wen; Yao-Yao Li; Li Xu; Xiao-Sheng Zhang
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 2.891

Review 7.  Step by Step Towards Effective Human Activity Recognition: A Balance between Energy Consumption and Latency in Health and Wellbeing Applications.

Authors:  Enida Cero Dinarević; Jasmina Baraković Husić; Sabina Baraković
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 8.  Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis.

Authors:  Lauren C Benson; Anu M Räisänen; Christian A Clermont; Reed Ferber
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 3.576

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.