| Literature DB >> 34199381 |
Phuc Huu Truong1, Sujeong You1, Sang-Hoon Ji1, Gu-Min Jeong2.
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a novel method for ambulatory activity recognition and pedestrian identification based on temporally adaptive weighting accumulation-based features extracted from categorical plantar pressure. The method relies on three pressure-related features, which are calculated by accumulating the pressure of the standing foot in each step over three different temporal weighting forms. In addition, we consider a feature reflecting the pressure variation. These four features characterize the standing posture in a step by differently weighting step pressure data over time. We use these features to analyze the standing foot during walking and then recognize ambulatory activities and identify pedestrians based on multilayer multiclass support vector machine classifiers. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves 97% accuracy for the two tasks when analyzing eight consecutive steps. For faster processing, the method reaches 89.9% and 91.3% accuracy for ambulatory activity recognition and pedestrian identification considering two consecutive steps, respectively, whereas the accuracy drops to 83.3% and 82.3% when considering one step for the respective tasks. Comparative results demonstrated the high performance of the proposed method regarding accuracy and temporal sensitivity.Entities:
Keywords: ambulatory activity recognition; gait monitoring; pedestrian identification; plantar pressure; smart shoes
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34199381 PMCID: PMC8199628 DOI: 10.3390/s21113842
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Smart insole to acquire plantar pressure data. Numbers 1–8 represent the positions of eight sensor nodes which measure the force exerted on the insole.
Figure 2TAWA-based method of activity recognition and pedestrian identification.
Figure 3Accumulation of plantar pressure data from a sensor per step. (a) Plantar pressure of a sensor in one step. (b) Temporally increasing weighting accumulation. (c) Temporally decreasing weighting accumulation.
Figure 4Maps of features calculated from different sensor nodes in a step.
Number of samples available according to the number of steps.
| No. Steps | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. Samples | 17,150 | 16,123 | 15,096 | 14,069 | 13,042 | 12,015 | 10,989 | 9963 |
Activity recognition results with respect to step number.
| No. Steps | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only TAWA | ||||||||
| Accuracy | 82.43% | 89.11% | 91.67% | 93.74% | 95.10% | 96.18% | 96.33% | 97.24% |
| F1 score | 82.25% | 88.95% | 91.54% | 93.63% | 94.98% | 96.08% | 96.25% | 96.71% |
| TAWA + STD | ||||||||
| Accuracy | 83.35% | 89.87% | 92.30% | 94.00% | 95.20% | 96.18% | 96.73% | 97.29% |
| F1 score | 83.18% | 89.72% | 92.17% | 93.87% | 95.05% | 96.09% | 96.64% | 97.07% |
Figure 5Confusion matrices of ambulatory recognition with respect to the number of steps.
Performance in each activity.
| Method | Activity | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level walk | 65.53% | 55.98% | 60.38% | ||
| FF [ | Stair descent | 57.66% | 60.53% | 59.06% | |
| (2 steps) | Stair ascent | 62.93% | 69.01% | 65.83% | |
| Mean | 61.83% | 62.04% | 61.84% | 61.76% | |
| Level walk | 87.04% | 85.49% | 86.26% | ||
| PPAC [ | Stair descent | 78.74% | 79.89% | 79.31% | |
| (2 steps) | Stair ascent | 81.46% | 82.19% | 81.82% | |
| Mean | 82.76% | 82.41% | 82.52% | 82.46% | |
| Level walk | 92.51% | 91.80% | 92.15% | ||
| Proposed | Stair descent | 88.86% | 88.96% | 88.91% | |
| (2 steps) | Stair ascent | 89.64% | 90.59% | 90.12% | |
| Mean | 89.87% | 89.58% | 89.89% | 89.72% | |
| Level walk | 78.09% | 78.36% | 78.22% | ||
| PPAC [ | Stair descent | 70.72% | 69.56% | 70.13% | |
| (1 step) | Stair ascent | 71.65% | 72.77% | 72.21% | |
| Mean | 73.94% | 73.49% | 73.56% | 73.52% | |
| Level walk | 81.34% | 83.48% | 82.40% | ||
| LSTM [ | Stair descent | 78.31% | 77.27% | 77.79% | |
| (1 step) | Stair ascent | 78.84% | 77.10% | 77.96% | |
| Mean | 79.69% | 79.50% | 79.28% | 79.38% | |
| Level walk | 85.60% | 86.20% | 85.90% | ||
| Proposed | Stair descent | 83.05% | 79.62% | 81.30% | |
| (1 step) | Stair ascent | 81.44% | 84.80% | 83.09% | |
| Mean | 83.35% | 83.04% | 83.34% | 83.18% |
Pedestrian identification results with respect to step number.
| No. Steps | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only TAWA | ||||||||
| Accuracy | 81.42% | 90.76% | 92.85% | 94.33% | 95.18% | 95.79% | 96.17% | 96.64% |
| F1 score | 81.99% | 91.22% | 93.21% | 94.63% | 94.40% | 95.88% | 96.10% | 96.04% |
| TAWA + STD | ||||||||
| Accuracy | 82.36% | 91.34% | 93.32% | 94.63% | 95.37% | 96.15% | 96.40% | 97.10% |
| F1 score | 83.01% | 91.91% | 93.61% | 94.91% | 95.55% | 96.18% | 96.33% | 96.57% |
Figure 6Confusion matrices of pedestrian identification with respect to the number of steps.
Performance comparison of pedestrian identification.
| Method | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF [ | 57.25% | 59.30% | 56.79% | 57.69% |
| PPAC [ | 88.15% | 88.09% | 88.15% | 88.10% |
| Proposed (2 steps) | 91.34% | 91.97% | 91.88% | 91.91% |
| PPAC [ | 75.01% | 74.57% | 75.01% | 74.58% |
| LSTM [ | 76.56% | 76.58% | 73.38% | 74.94% |
| Proposed (1 steps) | 82.36% | 83.09% | 82.97% | 83.01% |