Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27973434›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2016

Performance Evaluation of State of the Art Systems for Physical Activity Classification of Older Subjects Using Inertial Sensors in a Real Life Scenario: A Benchmark Study.

Muhammad Awais, Luca Palmerini, Alan K Bourke, Espen A F Ihlen, Jorunn L Helbostad, Lorenzo Chiari

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Performance Analysis of Boosting Classifiers in Recognizing Activities of Daily Living.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Muhammad AwaisDepartment of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering Guglielmo Marconi, University of Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy. muhammad.awais2@unibo.it.
Luca PalmeriniDepartment of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering Guglielmo Marconi, University of Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy. luca.palmerini@unibo.it.
Alan K BourkeDepartment of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. alan.bourke@ntnu.no.
Espen A F IhlenDepartment of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. espen.ihlen@ntnu.no.
Jorunn L HelbostadDepartment of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. jorunn.helbostad@ntnu.no.
Lorenzo ChiariDepartment of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering Guglielmo Marconi, University of Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy. lorenzo.chiari@unibo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The popularity of using wearable inertial sensors for physical activity classification has dramatically increased in the last decade due to their versatility, low form factor, and low power requirements. Consequently, various systems have been developed to automatically classify daily life activities. However, the scope and implementation of such systems is limited to laboratory-based investigations. Furthermore, these systems are not directly comparable, due to the large diversity in their design (e.g., number of sensors, placement of sensors, data collection environments, data processing techniques, features set, classifiers, cross-validation methods). Hence, the aim of this study is to propose a fair and unbiased benchmark for the field-based validation of three existing systems, highlighting the gap between laboratory and real-life conditions. For this purpose, three representative state-of-the-art systems are chosen and implemented to classify the physical activities of twenty older subjects (76.4 ± 5.6 years). The performance in classifying four basic activities of daily life (sitting, standing, walking, and lying) is analyzed in controlled and free living conditions. To observe the performance of laboratory-based systems in field-based conditions, we trained the activity classification systems using data recorded in a laboratory environment and tested them in real-life conditions in the field. The findings show that the performance of all systems trained with data in the laboratory setting highly deteriorates when tested in real-life conditions, thus highlighting the need to train and test the classification systems in the real-life setting. Moreover, we tested the sensitivity of chosen systems to window size (from 1 s to 10 s) suggesting that overall accuracy decreases with increasing window size. Finally, to evaluate the impact of the number of sensors on the performance, chosen systems are modified considering only the sensing unit worn at the lower back. The results, similarly to the multi-sensor setup, indicate substantial degradation of the performance when laboratory-trained systems are tested in the real-life setting. This degradation is higher than in the multi-sensor setup. Still, the performance provided by the single-sensor approach, when trained and tested with real data, can be acceptable (with an accuracy above 80%).

Indexed as

BenchmarkingActivities of Daily LivingAgedAlgorithmsExerciseHumansMonitoring, Ambulatoryinertial sensorsolder subjectsoverall accuracyphysical activity classificationreal life conditions

Identifiers

PMID27973434
PMCPMC5191085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.