Date post: | 28-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | theodore-francis |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Human Activity Recognition using
Smartphone
Amin Rasekh, Chien-An Chen, Yan Lu
CSCE 666 Project Presentation
Introduction◦ Human Activity Recognition◦ Active Learning
Goals Literature Review Methods
◦ Data Collection and Feature Extraction◦ Classification Techniques◦ Query Strategies of active learning
Results Conclusions
Outline
Using sensors to identify human activities such as walking, jogging, limping.
Motivation◦ Human survey (study human daily activities)◦ Medical care (diabetes, elderly, rehabilitation)
Sensors types◦ Inertial sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope)◦ Camera◦ GPS
Smartphone is small and convenient to carry around and its computational resource is powerful enough for our purpose.
Introduction: Activity Recognition
Passive Learning: What we have studied in classWe can achieve greater accuracy with fewer training labels if we choose the data from which we learn
Motivation: To minimize the time and labor for labeling abundant data
Introduction: Active Learning
Design a simple, light weight, and accurate system that can learn human activity with minimum user interaction.
◦ Compare and find a model that best fit our system in terms of accuracy and efficiency.
◦ Reduce the labeling time and labor works using active learning.
Goals
Use one or multiple camera to do a vision-based recognition [5,6].
Install multiple inertial sensors on the body. [1, 2, 3,4]
A mixture between vision-based and inertial sensor system.[7]
Classifiers such as Bayesian Decision Making, KNN, SVM, ANN were studied before. [10,11]
Features from time domain, frequency domain and wavelet analysis have been studied.[8,9]
Literature review
Data Collection◦ Smartphone: HTC EVO 4G◦ Sensor: 3D accelerometer,50 Hz ◦ Cellphone in pockets around waist◦ 3 people 5 activities: walking, biking, walking upstairs,
walking downstairs, jogging, limping
Feature Generation (Total 31 features)◦ Sampling Window: 256 samples (5.12 seconds)◦ Time Domain:
Variance, Mean, 25% Percentile, 75% Percentile, Correlation, Average Resultant Acceleration
◦ Frequency Domain: Energy, Entropy, Centroid Frequency, Peak Frequency
Methods
Classification Techniques◦ Quadratic ◦ K-Nearest Neighbors◦ Support Vector Machines◦ Artificial Neural Networks
Query Strategies based on Uncertainty◦ Quadratic: Distance from discriminant curve◦ KNN: Entropy◦ SVM: Distance from the boundary◦ ANN Discriminant function values
Methods
Query is performed for the unlabeled instance that is nearest to the discriminant curve or SVM boundary
Query Strategy: Distance Measure
Random Query
Active Query
Query is performed for the unlabeled instance that has the maximum entropy:
Query Strategy: Entropy Measure
Results: LDA Subspace
-1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0-2.6
-2.4
-2.2
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
LDA component 1
LD
A c
ompo
nen
t 2
walkinglimpingjoggingdownstairupstair
8.4 8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 10.2 10.47
7.5
8
8.5
LDA component 3
LD
A c
ompo
nen
t 4
walkinglimpingjoggingdownstairupstair
Results: Passive Learning
◦ Sequential Forward Selection (Wrapper)
◦ Algorithm: SVM
◦ 10-Fold Cross Validation for each feature subset
◦ Best Features
Variance, 25% Percentile, Frequency-Domain Entropy, Peak Frequency
◦ Classification Rate of SVM+LDA: 78%
◦ Classification Rate of SVM+SFS: 84%
Results: Feature Subset Selection
Results: LDA Space for Hw2 Data
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
First LDA Component
Seco
nd L
DA
Com
ponent
Results: Active Learning on Hw2 Data
0 50 100 1500.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Number of Instance Queries
Cla
ssifi
catio
n ra
te
Active LearningRandom Sampling
KNN
SVM
Quadratic
Results: Active Learning on Activity Data
0 50 100 150 200 250 3000.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
Number of instance queries
Cla
ssifi
catio
n ra
te
Active LearningRandom Sampling
-1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0-2.6
-2.4
-2.2
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
LDA component 1
LD
A c
ompo
nen
t 2
-1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0-2.6
-2.4
-2.2
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
LDA component 1
LD
A c
ompo
nen
t 2
Active learning with SVM
Random sampling with SVM
QuadraticKNN SVM
Improving the performance of active learning for activity recognition problem◦ Clustering◦ Hybrid query strategies
Adding more activities such as biking
Works in Progress
We achieved a classification rate of over 80% on 5 human activities using a smartphone.
The result is robust to common positions and orientations of cellphone.
SVM+SFS gives the best performance and is promising to run on mobile devices.
Performance of active learning is highly sensitive to the type of problem
Conclusions
Thank you!
Questions?
1) L. Bao and S. S. Intille, “Activity recognition from user-annotated acceleration data,” Pers Comput., Lecture Notes in computer Science, vol. 3001, pp. 1–17, 2004.
2) U. Maurer, A. Rowe, A. Smailagic, and D. Siewiorek, “Location and activity recognition using eWatch: A wearable sensor platform,” Ambient Intell. Everday Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3864, pp. 86–102, 2006.
3) J. Parkka, M. Ermes, P. Korpipaa, J. Mantyjarvi, J. Peltola, and I. Korhonen, “Activity classification using realistic data from wearable sensors,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 119–128, Jan. 2006.
4) N.Wang, E. Ambikairajah,N.H. Lovell, and B.G. Celler, “Accelerometry based classification of walking patterns using time-frequency analysis,” in Proc. 29th Annu. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., Lyon, France, 2007, pp. 4899–4902.
5) T.B.Moeslund,A.Hilton,V.Kr ¨ uger, Asurveyofadvancesinvision-based human motioncaptureandanalysis,Comput.VisionImageUnderstanding 104 (2–3)(2006)90–126.
6) T.B. Moeslund, E. Granum, A survey of computer vision-based human motion capture, Comput. Vision Image Understanding 81 (3) (2001) 231–268.
7) Y. Tao, H. Hu, H. Zhou, Integration of vision and inertial sensors for 3D arm motion tracking in home-based rehabilitation, Int. J. Robotics Res. 26 (6) (2007) 607–624.
8) Preece S J, Goulermas J Y, Kenney L P J and Howard D 2008b A comparison of feature extraction methods for the classification of dynamic activities from accelerometer data IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. at press
9) N. Ravi, N. Dandekar, P. Mysore, and M. L. Littman. Activity recognition from accelerometer data. In AAAI, pages 1541–1546, 2005.
10) S.J. Preece, J.Y. Goulermas, L.P.J. Kenney, D. Howard, K. Meijer and R. Crompton, Activity identification using body-mounted sensors—a review of classification techniques. Physiol Meas, 30 (2009), pp. R1–R33.
11) Altun, K., Barshan, B., Tun¸cel, O.: Comparative study on classifying human activities with miniature inertial and magnetic sensors. Pattern Recogn. 43(10), 3605–3620 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2010.04.019
Reference
Support Vector Machine
Results (can be removed)
Results: Active Learning on Hw2 Data
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30