| Literature DB >> 36141976 |
Ting Zhao1, Haibao Chen1, Yuchen Bai1, Yuyan Zhao1, Shenghui Zhao1.
Abstract
Abnormal activity in daily life is a relatively common symptom of chronic diseases, such as dementia. There will probably be a variety of repetitive activities in dementia patients' daily life, such as repeated handling of objects and repeated packing of clothes. It is particularly important to recognize the daily activities of the elderly, which can be further used to predict and monitor chronic diseases. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical ensemble deep learning activity recognition approach with wearable sensors based on focal loss. Seven basic everyday life activities including cooking, keyboarding, reading, brushing teeth, washing one's face, washing dishes and writing are considered in order to show its performance. Based on hold-out cross-validation results on a dataset collected from elderly volunteers, the average accuracy, precision, recall and F1-score of our approach are 98.69%, 98.05%, 98.01% and 97.99%, respectively, in identifying the activities of daily life for the elderly.Entities:
Keywords: activity recognition; deep learning; wearable sensors
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141976 PMCID: PMC9517260 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811706
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
The comparison of related work.
| Reference | Main Contributions | Sensor | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | The real-time activity recognition application on a smartphone with the Google Android platform | smartphone | stand, walk, stair up/down, run, shopping, taking bus, moving (by walk) |
| [ | The activity recognition model permits users to gain useful knowledge about the habits of millions of users passively just by having them carry cell phones | smartphone | walking, jogging, climbing stairs, sitting, and standing |
| [ | Proposed a deep convolutional neural network (convnet) is to perform HAR using smartphone sensors by exploiting the inherent characteristics of activities and 1D time-series signals | smartphone | walking, upstairs, downstairs, sitting and standing, lying |
| [ | Evaluating what is the best descriptor to recognize human activity using Convolutional Neural Network in a non-controlled environment using a network of smart objects | smartphone | standing, sitting, lying and walking |
| [ | Developed modified training procedures for LSTM networks and combine sets of diverse LSTM learners into classifier collectives | wearable sensors | close/open dishwasher, close/open drawer, close/open door, close/open fridge, toggle switch, drink from cup, clean table |
| [ | Investigating the opportunity to use deep learning to perform this integration of sensor data from multiple sensors | smartphone | sitting, standing, walking, climbing stairs, descending stairs, biking |
| [ | Proposed a generic deep framework for activity recognition based on convolutional and LSTM recurrent units | wearable sensors | close/open dishwasher, close/open drawer, close/open door, close/open fridge, toggle switch, drink from cup, clean table |
| [ | Introduced a novel ensemble ELM algorithm for human activity recognition using smartphone sensors | smartphone | sitting, standing, lying, walking, walking |
Figure 1Activity recognition network architecture based on deep ensemble learning.
Figure 2Single-channel sensor signal feature extraction.
Figure 3Feature extraction of multi-channel sensor signals.
Layer 1 construction.
| Layers | #Feature Maps | Feature Map Size | #Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSTM | 32 | 28 | 4352 |
| 1D-CNN | 8 | 28 | 1288 |
| BN | 8 | 28 | 32 |
| Max-pooling1D | 8 | 14 | 0 |
| Concatenate | 72 | 14 | 0 |
| Reshape | 1 | 14 × 72 | 0 |
Layer 2 construction.
| Layers | #Feature Maps | Feature Map Size | #Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2D-CNN | 8 | 14 × 72 | 80 |
| BN | 8 | 14 × 72 | 32 |
| Max-pooling2D | 8 | 7 × 36 | 0 |
| Concatenate | 16 | 7 × 36 | 0 |
| 2D-CNN | 32 | 7 × 36 | 4640 |
| BN | 32 | 7 × 36 | 128 |
| Max-pooling2D | 32 | 4 × 18 | 0 |
Regression layer construction.
| Layers | #Feature Maps | Feature Map Size | #Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flatten | 1 | 2304 | 0 |
| Dense-1 | 1 | 64 | 147,520 |
| Dense-2 | 1 | 32 | 2080 |
| Dense-3 | 1 | 16 | 528 |
| Dropout | 1 | 16 | 0 |
| Dense-4 | 1 | 8 | 136 |
| Dense-5 | 1 | 7 | 63 |
The comparison of different sensors.
| Sensors | Attitude Sensor (BWT61CL) | Triaxial | Gyroscope Sensor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Axis Acceleration | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 3-Axis Angular Velocity (Gyroscope) | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 3-Axis Angle | ✓ |
Classes distribution.
| Classes | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooking | 708 | 200 | 708 | 708 | 200 |
| Keyboarding | 708 | 200 | 708 | 708 | 708 |
| Reading | 708 | 708 | 200 | 708 | 708 |
| Brushing teeth | 708 | 708 | 200 | 708 | 708 |
| Washing face | 708 | 708 | 708 | 200 | 708 |
| Washing dishes | 708 | 708 | 708 | 200 | 708 |
| Writing | 708 | 708 | 708 | 708 | 200 |
Figure 4The curve of accuracy with training set.
Figure 5The curve of accuracy with validation set.
Comparison of HAR-CE and HAR-FL.
| Samples | HAR-FL | HAR-CE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | |
| S1 | 0.9870 | 0.9869 | 0.9868 | 0.9799 | 0.9798 | 0.9797 |
| S2 | 0.9759 | 0.9746 | 0.9747 | 0.9539 | 0.9517 | 0.9511 |
| S3 | 0.9723 | 0.9720 | 0.9715 | 0.9549 | 0.9543 | 0.9534 |
| S4 | 0.9850 | 0.9847 | 0.9846 | 0.9729 | 0.9720 | 0.9710 |
| S5 | 0.9823 | 0.9822 | 0.9821 | 0.9636 | 0.9632 | 0.9625 |
Figure 6The precision comparison of HAR-CE and HAR-FL in each class.
Figure 7The recall comparison of HAR-CE and HAR-FL in each class.
Figure 8The F1-score comparison of HAR-CE and HAR-FL in each class.
Figure 9The curve of accuracy of training set with different epoch when parameter γ is different.
Figure 10The curve of accuracy of validation set with different epoch when parameter γ is different.
Figure 11The comparison of model performance under different γ.
Heterogeneity dataset (DH) characterized by their respective attributes.
| Activities | Devices | FS | Users |
|---|---|---|---|
| [”Biking”, ”Sitting”, | Nexus 4 | 200 | [a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i] |
| Samsung S3 | 150 | ||
| Samsung S3 Mini | 100 | ||
| Samsung S+ | 50 |
The class distribution of DH dataset.
| Classes | S1 | S2 | S3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | stand | 7932 | 7932 | 7932 |
| sit | 8089 | 8089 | 8089 | |
| walk | 10,225 | 10,224 | 10,225 | |
| stairsup | 7519 | 2560 | 7519 | |
| stairsdown | 6607 | 6607 | 6607 | |
| bike | 9580 | 9580 | 2559 |
Figure 12The curves of the accuracy of DH training sets with epochs.
Figure 13The curves of the accuracy of DH validation sets with epochs.
The comparison results of HAR-CE and HAR-FL with DH data set.
| Samples | HAR-FL | HAR-CE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | |
| S1 | 0.9640 | 0.9641 | 0.9640 | 0.9569 | 0.9571 | 0.9570 |
| S2 | 0.9720 | 0.9717 | 0.9718 | 0.9660 | 0.9656 | 0.9657 |
| S3 | 0.9474 | 0.9465 | 0.9466 | 0.9388 | 0.9362 | 0.9363 |
The distribution of indicators for each class of HAR-FL and HAR-CE with DH dataset.
| Classes | HAR-FL | HAR-CE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | |
| stand | 0.9950 | 0.9965 | 0.9970 | 0.9965 | 0.9960 | 0.9962 |
| sit | 1.000 | 0.9990 | 0.9997 | 1.0000 | 0.9995 | 0.9998 |
| walk | 0.9626 | 0.9660 | 0.9590 | 0.9618 | 0.9460 | 0.9588 |
| stairsup | 0.9089 | 0.9128 | 0.9067 | 0.9008 | 0.9021 | 0.9055 |
| stairsdown | 0.8777 | 0.8660 | 0.8783 | 0.8747 | 0.8644 | 0.8710 |
| bike | 0.9858 | 0.9880 | 0.9894 | 0.9744 | 0.9871 | 0.9864 |