7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gait Activity Classification on Unbalanced Data from Inertial Sensors Using Shallow and Deep Learning

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Activity recognition is one of the most active areas of research in ubiquitous computing. In particular, gait activity recognition is useful to identify various risk factors in people’s health that are directly related to their physical activity. One of the issues in activity recognition, and gait in particular, is that often datasets are unbalanced (i.e., the distribution of classes is not uniform), and due to this disparity, the models tend to categorize into the class with more instances. In the present study, two methods for classifying gait activities using accelerometer and gyroscope data from a large-scale public dataset were evaluated and compared. The gait activities in this dataset are: (i) going down an incline, (ii) going up an incline, (iii) walking on level ground, (iv) going down stairs, and (v) going up stairs. The proposed methods are based on conventional (shallow) and deep learning techniques. In addition, data were evaluated from three data treatments: original unbalanced data, sampled data, and augmented data. The latter was based on the generation of synthetic data according to segmented gait data. The best results were obtained with classifiers built with augmented data, with F-measure results of 0.812 ( σ = 0.078) for the shallow learning approach, and of 0.927 ( σ = 0.033) for the deep learning approach. In addition, the data augmentation strategy proposed to deal with the unbalanced problem resulted in increased classification performance using both techniques.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Association of Daily Step Count and Step Intensity With Mortality Among US Adults

          What are the associations between daily step counts and step intensity with mortality among US adults? In this observational study that included 4840 participants, a greater number of steps per day was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio for 8000 steps/d vs 4000 steps/d, 0.49). There was no significant association between step intensity and all-cause mortality after adjusting for the total number of steps per day. Greater numbers of steps per day were associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. It is unclear whether the number of steps per day and the intensity of stepping are associated with lower mortality. Describe the dose-response relationship between step count and intensity and mortality. Representative sample of US adults aged at least 40 years in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who wore an accelerometer for up to 7 days ( from 2003-2006). Mortality was ascertained through December 2015. Accelerometer-measured number of steps per day and 3 step intensity measures (extended bout cadence, peak 30-minute cadence, and peak 1-minute cadence [steps/min]). Accelerometer data were based on measurements obtained during a 7-day period at baseline. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs), mortality rates, and 95% CIs were estimated using cubic splines and quartile classifications adjusting for age; sex; race/ethnicity; education; diet; smoking status; body mass index; self-reported health; mobility limitations; and diagnoses of diabetes, stroke, heart disease, heart failure, cancer, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. A total of 4840 participants (mean age, 56.8 years; 2435 [54%] women; 1732 [36%] individuals with obesity) wore accelerometers for a mean of 5.7 days for a mean of 14.4 hours per day. The mean number of steps per day was 9124. There were 1165 deaths over a mean 10.1 years of follow-up, including 406 CVD and 283 cancer deaths. The unadjusted incidence density for all-cause mortality was 76.7 per 1000 person-years (419 deaths) for the 655 individuals who took less than 4000 steps per day; 21.4 per 1000 person-years (488 deaths) for the 1727 individuals who took 4000 to 7999 steps per day; 6.9 per 1000 person-years (176 deaths) for the 1539 individuals who took 8000 to 11 999 steps per day; and 4.8 per 1000 person-years (82 deaths) for the 919 individuals who took at least 12 000 steps per day. Compared with taking 4000 steps per day, taking 8000 steps per day was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.44-0.55]), as was taking 12 000 steps per day (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]). Unadjusted incidence density for all-cause mortality by peak 30 cadence was 32.9 per 1000 person-years (406 deaths) for the 1080 individuals who took 18.5 to 56.0 steps per minute; 12.6 per 1000 person-years (207 deaths) for the 1153 individuals who took 56.1 to 69.2 steps per minute; 6.8 per 1000 person-years (124 deaths) for the 1074 individuals who took 69.3 to 82.8 steps per minute; and 5.3 per 1000 person-years (108 deaths) for the 1037 individuals who took 82.9 to 149.5 steps per minute. Greater step intensity was not significantly associated with lower mortality after adjustment for total steps per day (eg, highest vs lowest quartile of peak 30 cadence: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.65-1.27]; P value for trend = .34). Based on a representative sample of US adults, a greater number of daily steps was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality. There was no significant association between step intensity and mortality after adjusting for total steps per day. This study uses National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to examine the dose-response relationships between step count (steps/d) and step intensity (steps/min) and mortality in a representative sample of US adults aged 40 years or older.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Why Does Deep and Cheap Learning Work So Well?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Conference Proceedings: not found

              Rectified Linear Units Improve Restricted Boltzmann Machines

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sensors (Basel)
                Sensors (Basel)
                sensors
                Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
                MDPI
                1424-8220
                23 August 2020
                September 2020
                : 20
                : 17
                : 4756
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Ciudad de México 03940, Mexico; luismvc@ 123456cio.mx
                [2 ]Department of Computer Science, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Investigación Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada 22860, Mexico; favela@ 123456cicese.mx
                [3 ]Centro de Investigaciones en Óptica, Aguascalientes 20200, Mexico
                [4 ]School of Computing, Ulster University, Jordanstown BT37 0QB, UK; m.garcia-constantino@ 123456ulster.ac.uk
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: hussein@ 123456cicese.mx ; Tel.: +52-646-175-0500 (ext. 23457)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3979-9465
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9874-4088
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3420-0532
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2967-9654
                Article
                sensors-20-04756
                10.3390/s20174756
                7506657
                32842459
                1e0332b1-45bd-4fca-8d66-99b12b46c13b
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 03 July 2020
                : 17 August 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Biomedical engineering
                activity recognition,human gait,gait activities,gait classification,inertial sensors

                Comments

                Comment on this article