| Literature DB >> 33530295 |
Long Meng1, Anjing Zhang2, Chen Chen1,3, Xingwei Wang1, Xinyu Jiang1, Linkai Tao1,4, Jiahao Fan1,3, Xuejiao Wu5, Chenyun Dai1, Yiyuan Zhang6,7, Bart Vanrumste6,7, Toshiyo Tamura8, Wei Chen1,3.
Abstract
Commonly used sensors like accelerometers, gyroscopes, surface electromyography sensors, etc., which provide a convenient and practical solution for human activity recognition (HAR), have gained extensive attention. However, which kind of sensor can provide adequate information in achieving a satisfactory performance, or whether the position of a single sensor would play a significant effect on the performance in HAR are sparsely studied. In this paper, a comparative study to fully investigate the performance of the aforementioned sensors for classifying four activities (walking, tooth brushing, face washing, drinking) is explored. Sensors are spatially distributed over the human body, and subjects are categorized into three groups (able-bodied people, stroke survivors, and the union of both). Performances of using accelerometer, gyroscope, sEMG, and their combination in each group are evaluated by adopting the Support Vector Machine classifier with the Leave-One-Subject-Out Cross-Validation technique, and the optimal sensor position for each kind of sensor is presented based on the accuracy. Experimental results show that using the accelerometer could obtain the best performance in each group. The highest accuracy of HAR involving stroke survivors was 95.84 ± 1.75% (mean ± standard error), achieved by the accelerometer attached to the extensor carpi ulnaris. Furthermore, taking the practical application of HAR into consideration, a novel approach to distinguish various activities of stroke survivors based on a pre-trained HAR model built on healthy subjects is proposed, the highest accuracy of which is 77.89 ± 4.81% (mean ± standard error) with the accelerometer attached to the extensor carpi ulnaris.Entities:
Keywords: daily activity recognition; sensor placement; single wearable sensor; stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33530295 PMCID: PMC7865661 DOI: 10.3390/s21030799
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576