MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980950444 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2947446

Human Action Recognition Using Deep Multilevel Multimodal (${M}^{2}$ ) Fusion of Depth and Inertial Sensors

2019· article· en· W2980950444 on OpenAlexaff
Zeeshan Ahmad, Naimul Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Convolutional neural networkDiscriminative modelFeature extractionLeverage (statistics)Modality (human–computer interaction)Sensor fusionSupport vector machineFuse (electrical)Deep learningComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multimodal fusion frameworks for Human Action Recognition (HAR) using depth and inertial sensor data have been proposed over the years. In most of the existing works, fusion is performed at a single level (feature level or decision level), missing the opportunity to fuse rich mid-level features necessary for better classification. To address this shortcoming, in this paper, we propose three novel deep multilevel multimodal (M2) fusion frameworks to capitalize on different fusion strategies at various stages and to leverage the superiority of multilevel fusion. At input, we transform the depth data into depth images called sequential front view images (SFIs) and inertial sensor data into signal images. Each input modality, depth and inertial, is further made multimodal by taking convolution with the Prewitt filter. Creating “modality within modality” enables further complementary and discriminative feature extraction through Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). CNNs are trained on input images of each modality to learn low-level, high-level and complex features. Learned features are extracted and fused at different stages of the proposed frameworks to combine discriminative and complementary information. These highly informative features are served as input to a multi-class Support Vector Machine (SVM). We evaluate the proposed frameworks on three publicly available multimodal HAR datasets, namely, UTD Multimodal Human Action Dataset (MHAD), Berkeley MHAD, and UTD-MHAD Kinect V2. Experimental results show the supremacy of the proposed fusion frameworks over existing methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207