Human Activity Recognition: A Comparative Study to Assess the Contribution Level of Accelerometer, ECG, and PPG Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial sensors are widely used in the field of human activity recognition (HAR), since this source of information is the most informative time series among non-visual datasets. HAR researchers are actively exploring other approaches and different sources of signals to improve the performance of HAR systems. In this study, we investigate the impact of combining bio-signals with a dataset acquired from inertial sensors on recognizing human daily activities. To achieve this aim, we used the PPG-DaLiA dataset consisting of 3D-accelerometer (3D-ACC), electrocardiogram (ECG), photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals acquired from 15 individuals while performing daily activities. We extracted hand-crafted time and frequency domain features, then, we applied a correlation-based feature selection approach to reduce the feature-set dimensionality. After introducing early fusion scenarios, we trained and tested random forest models with subject-dependent and subject-independent setups. Our results indicate that combining features extracted from the 3D-ACC signal with the ECG signal improves the classifier's performance F1-scores by 2.72% and 3.00% (from 94.07% to 96.80%, and 83.16% to 86.17%) for subject-dependent and subject-independent approaches, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".