The effectiveness of simple heuristic features in sensor orientation and placement problems in human activity recognition using a single smartphone accelerometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human activity Recognition (HAR) using smartphone sensors suffers from two major problems: sensor orientation and placement. Sensor orientation and sensor placement problems refer to the variation in sensor signal for a particular activity due to sensors' altering orientation and placement. Extracting orientation and position invariant features from raw sensor signals is a simple solution for tackling these problems. Using few heuristic features rather than numerous time-domain and frequency-domain features offers more simplicity in this approach. The heuristic features are features which have very minimal effects of sensor orientation and placement. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of four simple heuristic features in solving the sensor orientation and placement problems using a 1D-CNN-LSTM model for a data set consisting of over 12 million samples. METHODS: We accumulated data from 42 participants for six common daily activities: Lying, Sitting, Walking, and Running at 3-Metabolic Equivalent of Tasks (METs), 5-METs and 7-METs from a single accelerometer sensor of a smartphone. We conducted our study for three smartphone positions: Pocket, Backpack and Hand. We extracted simple heuristic features from the accelerometer data and used them to train and test a 1D-CNN-LSTM model to evaluate their effectiveness in solving sensor orientation and placement problems. RESULTS: We performed intra-position and inter-position evaluations. In intra-position evaluation, we trained and tested the model using data from the same smartphone position, whereas, in inter-position evaluation, the training and test data was from different smartphone positions. For intra-position evaluation, we acquired 70-73% accuracy; for inter-position cases, the accuracies ranged between 59 and 69%. Moreover, we performed participant-specific and activity-specific analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the simple heuristic features are considerably effective in solving orientation problems. With further development, such as fusing the heuristic features with other methods that eliminate placement issues, we can also achieve a better result than the outcome we achieved using the heuristic features for the sensor placement problem. In addition, we found the heuristic features to be more effective in recognizing high-intensity activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".