Recognizing Human Activities from Accelerometer and Physiological Sensors

Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 35)


Recently the interest about the services in the ubiquitous environment has increased. These kinds of services are focusing on the context of the user’s activities, location or environment. There were many studies about recognizing these contexts using various sensory resources. To recognize human activity, many of them used an accelerometer, which shows good accuracy to recognize the user’s activities of movements, but they did not recognize stable activities which can be classified by the user’s emotion and inferred by physiological sensors. In this paper, we exploit multiple sensor signals to recognize user’s activity. As Armband includes an accelerometer and physiological sensors, we used them with a fuzzy Bayesian network for the continuous sensor data. The fuzzy membership function uses three stages differed by the distribution of each sensor data. Experiments in the activity recognition accuracy have conducted by the combination of the usages of accelerometers and physiological signals. For the result, the total accuracy appears to be 74.4% for the activities including dynamic activities and stable activities, using the physiological signals and one 2-axis accelerometer. When we use only the physiological signals the accuracy is 60.9%, and when we use the 2 axis accelerometer the accuracy is 44.2%. We show that using physiological signals with accelerometer is more efficient in recognizing activities.


Keywords Activity recognition Physiological sensor Fuzzy Bayesian network 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Tapia, S. Intille, and K. Larson, Activity recognition in the home using simple and ubiquitous sensors, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, International Conference on Pervasive Computing, vol. 3001, pp. 158–175 (2004).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Han and B. Bhanu, Human activity recognition in thermal infrared imagery, IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 3, pp. 17–25 (2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Meijer, K. Westererp, F. Verhoeven, H. Koper, and F. Hoor, Methods to asses physical activity with special reference to motion sensors and accelerometers, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 38(3), 221–229 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Ravi, N. Dandekar, P. Mysore, and M. Littman, Activity recognition from accelerometer, In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, pp. 11–18 (2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Parkka, M. Ermes, P. Korpipaa, J. Mantyjarvi, J. Peltola, and I. Korhonen, Activity classification using realistic data from wearable sensors, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 10(1), 119–128 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Subramanya, A. Raj, J. Bilmes, and D. Fox, Recognizing activities and spatial context using wearable sensors, In Proceedings of Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Cox, Fuzzy fundamentals, IEEE Spectrum, 29(10), 58–61 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bodymedia\(^{\copyright}\), Sensewear behavior prescribed,
  9. 9.
    J. Jang, C. Sun, and E. Mizutani, Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1997).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Korb and A. Nicholson, Bayesian artificial intelligence, Chapman and Hall/Crc Computer Science and Data Analysis, Boca Raton, FL (2004).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Domingos and M. Pazzani, On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss, Machine Learning, 29(2-3), 103–130(1997).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceYonsei University 262 Seongsan-ro, Sudaemoon-guKorea

Personalised recommendations