| Literature DB >> 31362425 |
Mohammed A A Al-Qaness1, Mohamed Abd Elaziz2, Sunghwan Kim3, Ahmed A Ewees4, Aaqif Afzaal Abbasi5, Yousif A Alhaj6, Ammar Hawbani7.
Abstract
Human motion detection and activity recognition are becoming vital for the applications in smart homes. Traditional Human Activity Recognition (HAR) mechanisms use special devices to track human motions, such as cameras (vision-based) and various types of sensors (sensor-based). These mechanisms are applied in different applications, such as home security, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), gaming, and healthcare. However, traditional HAR methods require heavy installation, and can only work under strict conditions. Recently, wireless signals have been utilized to track human motion and HAR in indoor environments. The motion of an object in the test environment causes fluctuations and changes in the Wi-Fi signal reflections at the receiver, which result in variations in received signals. These fluctuations can be used to track object (i.e., a human) motion in indoor environments. This phenomenon can be improved and leveraged in the future to improve the internet of things (IoT) and smart home devices. The main Wi-Fi sensing methods can be broadly categorized as Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Wi-Fi radar (by using Software Defined Radio (SDR)) and Channel State Information (CSI). CSI and RSSI can be considered as device-free mechanisms because they do not require cumbersome installation, whereas the Wi-Fi radar mechanism requires special devices (i.e., Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP)). Recent studies demonstrate that CSI outperforms RSSI in sensing accuracy due to its stability and rich information. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of recent advances in the CSI-based sensing mechanism and illustrates the drawbacks, discusses challenges, and presents some suggestions for the future of device-free sensing technology.Entities:
Keywords: CSI; RSSI; Wi-Fi; device-free; human activity recognition (HAR)
Year: 2019 PMID: 31362425 PMCID: PMC6696212 DOI: 10.3390/s19153329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Review on device-based human activity recognition systems.
| Literature | Device | Drawbacks |
|---|---|---|
| [ | Camera | Requires good light conditions, and cannot go through a wall. |
| [ | Acoustic sensors | Require carrying or installing acoustic sensors. |
| [ | Accelerometer sensors | Require a human to carry devices supplied with accelerometers. |
| [ | Wearable sensors | Require a human to wear body sensors. |
| [ | Environment installed sensors | Require heavy installation. |
| [ | Smartphone | Requires a human to carry a smartphone. |
Figure 1The differences between device-free and device-based sensing mechanisms; (a) device-based mechanisms; (b) device-free mechanisms.
Figure 2Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) equivalent model.
A comparison between Channel State Information (CSI) and Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI).
| Metric | RSSI | CSI |
|---|---|---|
| Network layer | MAC layer | Physical layer |
| Time resolution | Packet size | Multipath signal cluster scale |
| Frequency resolution | No | Subcarrier scale |
| Temporal stability | Low | High |
| Measurement band | RF band | Base band |
| Granularity | Coarse-grained (per packet) | Fine-grained (per subcarrier) |
| Universality | Almost all Wi-Fi devices | Some Wi-Fi devices |
Figure 3Channel State Information (CSI) based sensing method work flow.
Figure 4CSI subcarriers of six streams after the filtering of a human fall experiment.
Figure 5Raw CSI streams of a human through-wall walking experiment.
Figure 6CSI streams of a human through-wall walking experiment after applying exponential filter.
Figure 7A number of features from CSI time and frequency domains.
Some of the classifiers that are used to classify CSI-based human motion detection.
| Literature | Type of Classified Motion | Classifier | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIFS [ | Human localization | Probability model | Achieves a mean error lower than 1 m |
| CSI-MIMO [ | Human localization | Deterministic kNN and the probabilistic Bayes rule | Achieves an accuracy of 0.95 m |
| PADS [ | Human motion | SVM | Achieves a true positive rate of 94% |
| E-eyes [ | In-place activity: empty, cooking, eating, | Earth mover’s distance (EMD) and Multi-Dimensional | Achieves 96% average |
| CRAM [ | Walking, running, sitting down, falling, | Model activities with Hidden Markov Model (HMM), | Achieves an accuracy of 96% |
| WIBECAM [ | Empty, walking, standing, sitting | Linear discriminant analysis | Achieves accuracies from 0.73 |
| Wei et al. [ | Walking, standing, lying, and sitting | Sparse Representative Classifier (SRC) | Achieves 90% of accuracy |
| EI [ | Wiping the white-board, walking, | Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) | Achieves an accuracy of 0.75 with balance |
| Wu et al. [ | Walking, sitting down, standing up, | BP neural network | Achieves an accuracy rate of 94.46% |
| Li et al. [ | Bend, and hand clap, walk, phone call, sit down and squat | SVM | Achieves a mean true positive of 98.5%. |
| WiFall [ | Fall detection | SVM | 90% |
| RT-Fall [ | Fall detection | SVM | Achieves an accuracy of 100% |
| Li et al. [ | Sit down, lie, walk, squat down, stand up, crawl, and fall | RF | Achieves a detection accuracy of 95% in |
| WiG [ | 4 hand motions (left, right, up, down) | SVM | Achives an accuracy of 93% |
| WiCatch [ | Open the window, boxing, open the fridge, push, | SVM | Achieves an accuracy of 96% |
| WIHEAR [ | Lip motion for Several world syllabus | DTW | Achieves an accuracy of 91% |
| WiKey [ | 37 Keystrokes (10 digits, one space bar | kNN classifier | Achieves keystrokes detection rateof 97.5% |
| WiFind [ | Detect driver fatigue by tracking human | SVM | Achieves an accuracy of 89.6% for single driver; |
| Sleepy [ | Sleep monitoring (tracing human motion during sleep) | Probability model | Achieves 95.65% detection accuracy |
Figure 8CSI-based sensing scenarios.