Soft Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 333–343 | Cite as

Human activity recognition based on a sensor weighting hierarchical classifier

  • Oresti Banos
  • Miguel Damas
  • Hector Pomares
  • Fernando Rojas
  • Blanca Delgado-Marquez
  • Olga Valenzuela
Focus

Abstract

The analysis of daily living human behavior has proven to be of key importance to prevent unhealthy habits. The diversity of activities and the individuals’ particular execution style determine that several sources of information are normally required. One of the main issues is to optimally combine them to guarantee performance, scalability and robustness. In this paper we present a fusion classification methodology which takes into account the potential of the individual decisions yielded at both activity and sensor classification levels. Particularly tested on a wearable sensors based system, the method reinforces the idea that some parts of the body (i.e., sensors) may be specially informative for the recognition of each particular activity, thus supporting the ranking of the decisions provided by each associated sensor decision entity. Our method systematically outperforms the results obtained by traditional multiclass models which otherwise may require a high-dimensional feature space to acquire a similar performance. The comparison with other activity-recognition fusion approaches also demonstrates our model scales significantly better for small sensor networks.

Keywords

Multisource fusion Hierarchical classification Weighted decision Binary classifiers Activity recognition Wearable sensors 

References

  1. Allwein EL, Schapire RE, Singer Y, Kaelblin P (2000) Reducing multiclass to binary: a unifying approach for margin classifiers. J Mach Learn Res 1:113–141Google Scholar
  2. Amft O, Lukowicz P (2009) From backpacks to smartphones: past, present, and future of wearable computers. Pervasive Computi IEEE 8(3):8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banos O, Damas M, Pomares H, Rojas I (2011) Automatic recognition of daily living activities based on a hierarchical classifier. In: Advances in computational intelligence: 11th international work-conference on artificial neural networks, vol 6692. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–193Google Scholar
  4. Banos O, Damas M, Pomares H, Prieto A, Rojas I (2012) Daily living activity recognition based on statistical feature quality group selection. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):8013–8021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bao L, Intille SS (2004) Activity recognition from user-annotated acceleration data. Pervasive Comput 23:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonomi AG, Plasqui G, Goris AHC, Westerterp KR (2009) Improving assessment of daily energy expenditure by identifying types of physical activity with a single accelerometer. J Appl Physiol 107(3):655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouten C, Koekkoek K, Verduin M, Kodde R, Janssen J (1997) A triaxial accelerometer and portable data processing unit for the assessment of daily physical activity. Biomed Eng IEEE Trans 44(3):136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cover T, Hart P (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. Inf Theory IEEE Trans 13(1):21–27MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines: and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2000) Pattern classification, 2nd edn. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Ermes M, Parkka J, Mantyjarvi J, Korhonen I (2008) Detection of daily activities and sports with wearable sensors in controlled and uncontrolled conditions. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 12(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European-Commission (2011) Ambient assisted living joint programme. http://www.aal-europe.eu/
  13. He Z, Jin L (2009) Activity recognition from acceleration data based on discrete consine transform and svm. In: Systems, man and cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009, IEEE international conference, pp 5041–5044Google Scholar
  14. Kittler J, Hatef M, Duin R, Matas J (1998) On combining classifiers. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 20(3):226–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lester J, Choudhury T, Kern N, Borriello G, Hannaford B (2005) A hybrid discriminative/generative approach for modeling human activities. In: Proceedings of the 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI’05. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 766–772Google Scholar
  16. Mantyjarvi J, Himberg J, Seppanen T (2001) Recognizing human motion with multiple acceleration sensors. In: Systems, man, and cybernetics, 2001 IEEE international conference, vol 2, pp 747–752Google Scholar
  17. Mathie MJ, Coster ACF, Lovell NH, Celler BG (2004) Accelerometry: providing an integrated, practical method for long-term, ambulatory monitoring of human movement. Physiol Meas 25(2):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maurer U, Smailagic A, Siewiorek D, Deisher M (2006) Activity recognition and monitoring using multiple sensors on different body positions. In: Wearable and implantable body sensor networks, 2006. BSN 2006. International workshop on, pp 113–116Google Scholar
  19. Parera J, Angulo C, Rodriguez-Molinero A, Cabestany J (2009) User daily activity classification from accelerometry using feature selection and svm. LNCS, vol 5517, pp 1137–1144Google Scholar
  20. Parkka J, Ermes M, Korpipaa P, Mantyjarvi J, Peltola J, Korhonen I (2006) Activity classification using realistic data from wearable sensors. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 10(1):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pirttikangas S, Fujinami K, Seppanen T (2006) Feature selection and activity recognition from wearable sensors. In: Ubiquitous computing systems, third international symposium, LNCS, vol 4239, pp 516–527Google Scholar
  22. Preece S, Goulermas J, Kenney L, Howard D (2009) A comparison of feature extraction methods for the classification of dynamic activities from accelerometer data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56(3):871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Preece SJ, Goulermas JY, Kenney LPJ, Howard D, Meijer K, Crompton R (2009b) Activity identification using body-mounted sensors-a review of classification techniques. Physiol Meas 30(4):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ravi N, Mysore P, Littman ML (2005) Activity recognition from accelerometer data. In: In Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence, pp 1541–1546Google Scholar
  25. Roggen D, Calatroni A, Rossi M, Holleczek T, Forster K, Troster G, Lukowicz P, Bannach D, Pirkl G, Ferscha A, Doppler J, Holzmann C, Kurz M, Holl G, Chavarriaga R, Sagha H, Bayati H, Creatura M, del Millan JR (2010) Collecting complex activity datasets in highly rich networked sensor environments. In: Networked sensing systems (INSS), 2010 seventh international conference, pp 233–240Google Scholar
  26. Sazonov E, Makeyev O, Schuckers S, Lopez-Meyer P, Melanson E, Neuman M (2010) Automatic detection of swallowing events by acoustical means for applications of monitoring of ingestive behavior. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57(3):626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sazonov E, Metcalfe K, Lopez-Meyer P, Tiffany S (2011) Rf hand gesture sensor for monitoring of cigarette smoking. In: Sensing technology, 2011 fifth international conference, pp 426–430Google Scholar
  28. Sharma R, Pavlovic V, Huang T (1998) Toward multimodal human-computer interface. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, vol 86, pp 853–869Google Scholar
  29. Shephard RJ (2003) Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 37(3):197–206MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Staudenmayer J, Pober D, Crouter S, Bassett D, Freedson P (2009) An artificial neural network to estimate physical activity energy expenditure and identify physical activity type from an accelerometer. J Appl Physiol 107(4):1300–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Theodoridis S, Koutroumbas K (2008) Pattern recognition, 4th edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Ward J, Lukowicz P, Troster G, Starner T (2006) Activity recognition of assembly tasks using body-worn microphones and accelerometers. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 28(10):1553–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren JM, Ekelund U, Besson H, Mezzani A, Geladas N, Vanhees L (2010) Assessment of physical activity a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the european association of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovas Prev Rehabil 17(2):127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WHO (2005) Global report, preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment tech rep. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. WHO (2006) American report, regional strategy on an integrated approach to the prevention and control of chronic diseases including diet, physical activity, and health: tech rep. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. Zappi P, Stiefmeier T, Farella E, Roggen D, Benini L, Troster G (2007) Activity recognition from on-body sensors by classifier fusion: sensor scalability and robustness. In: 3rd international conference on intelligent sensors, sensor networks and information, pp 281–286Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oresti Banos
    • 1
  • Miguel Damas
    • 1
  • Hector Pomares
    • 1
  • Fernando Rojas
    • 1
  • Blanca Delgado-Marquez
    • 2
  • Olga Valenzuela
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Architecture and Computer TechnologyCITIC-UGR, University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of International EconomicsUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Applied MathematicsUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations