| Literature DB >> 35295201 |
Feng Tai1, Ye Zhang1, Yaoxiang Yu1, Shijie Zhou2, Bo Tan3, Chengdong Zhu1, Lele Fang4, Qiaolin Yu5.
Abstract
With the continuous development of science and technology, people can apply more and more technology to the cultivation of children's abilities. In the process of cultivating children's ability, the most fancy is the study of executive function, and this is the research topic of this article. In the past, training methods such as music, mindfulness, and exercise have been used in the study of children's executive abilities to promote the development of preschool children's executive functions. While various approaches have had some effect, researchers have been exploring more comprehensive approaches to effective training. This article is aimed at studying how to use image recognition technology to conduct an intervention analysis of breakdancing in promoting the executive function of preschool children. For this reason, this paper proposes image recognition technology based on deep learning neural network and conducts research, analysis, and improvement on related technologies obtained from deep learning. This makes it more suitable for the research topic of this article and design-related experiments and analysis to explore its related performance. The experimental results in this paper show that the improved image recognition technology has improved accuracy by 31.2%. And the performance of its algorithm is also improved by 21%, which can be very effective in monitoring preschool children during breakdancing.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35295201 PMCID: PMC8920643 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1991138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Application of image recognition technology.
Figure 2Block diagram of image recognition system.
Figure 3Structure diagram of training autoencoder.
Figure 4Structure diagram of training cascade encoder classification.
Figure 5Subfunction division of executive functions.
Figure 6Breakdancing action based on image recognition.
Basic situation of the subjects.
| Grouping | Experimental class | Control class |
|---|---|---|
| Total number of participants | 30 pieces | 31 pieces |
| Male | 16 pieces | 15 pieces |
| Female | 14 pieces | 16 pieces |
| Average age | 59.47 | 59.12 |
| Standard deviation | 1.77 | 1.94 |
“Five Levels of Street Dance” training plan.
| Week | Training category | Item number | Training content | Training goal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Hook | 12 | Squat balance | Cognitive flexibility |
| 13 | Hand changes | Working memory | ||
| 14 | Hip swing | Inhibition control | ||
| 15 | Hook exercise | Inhibition control |
Homogeneity test before experiment.
| Test content | Experimental class | Control class |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Stroop test | 12.83 | 11.86 | 0.674 |
| Dimension change card sort | 12.45 | 12.59 | -1.14 |
| Points memory task | 0.84 | 0.74 | 1.278 |
| Reverse counting task | 7.34 | 6.51 | 0.246 |
Figure 7The flow of the presentation phase.
The average score and standard deviation of each component of the executive function of the experimental class and the control class.
| Test content | Experimental class | Control class | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Posttest | Pretest | Posttest | |
| Stroop test | 12.81 ± 4.51 | 23.17 ± 1.18 | 11.85 ± 6.28 | 17.56 ± 4.64 |
| Dimension change card sort | 12.41 ± 2.84 | 15.63 ± 1.81 | 12.51 ± 2.84 | 13.59 ± 2.34 |
| Points memory task | 7.31 ± 2.14 | 8.78 ± 1.78 | 6.52 ± 2.31 | 6.94 ± 1.98 |
| Reverse counting task | 0.84 ± 0.869 | 1.82 ± 0.754 | 0.76 ± 0.86 | 0.84 ± 0.86 |
Analysis of variance of two-factor mixed experimental design.
| Test content | Source | df | MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stroop task | Time | 1 | 2187.549 | 141.759 | 0.714 |
| Between groups | 1 | 227.189 | 9.024 | 0.126 | |
| Time∗between groups | 1 | 97.214 | 6.328 | 0.089 | |
| Time | 1 | 127.354 | 27.498 | 0.318 |
Figure 8The accuracy of the three fully connected layers under different pruning ratios.
Figure 9Comparison of training loss and accuracy of validation set before and after improvement.
Figure 10Comparison of average ROC curve and CMC curve.
Figure 11Performance comparison on three datasets.