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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Activity of Daily Living Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review of Ambient, Wearable, and Fusion-Based Sensing Technologies.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Validation of an Activity Type Recognition Model Classifying Daily Physical Behavior in Older Adults: The HAR70+ Model.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Physical Activity Monitoring and Classification Using Machine Learning Techniques.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Human activity recognition of children with wearable devices using LightGBM machine learning.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of a Smartwatch App in Detecting Induced Falls: Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Influence of upper limb activity on the step count and accuracy of sleep time of a wristband-type physical activity tracker.PloS one · 2022Article
- LSTM-Based Emotion Detection Using Physiological Signals: IoT Framework for Healthcare and Distance Learning in COVID-19.IEEE internet of things journal · 2021Article
- Classical Machine Learning Versus Deep Learning for the Older Adults Free-Living Activity Classification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Use of Inertial Measurement Units for the Study of Free Living Environment Activity Assessment: A Literature Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Performance Analysis of Boosting Classifiers in Recognizing Activities of Daily Living.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- A Combined Offline and Online Algorithm for Real-Time and Long-Term Classification of Sheep Behaviour: Novel Approach for Precision Livestock Farming.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- An Internet of Things Based Bed-Egress Alerting Paradigm Using Wearable Sensors in Elderly Care Environment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- The Role of Movement Analysis in Diagnosing and Monitoring Neurodegenerative Conditions: Insights from Gait and Postural Control.Brain sciences · 2019Review
- StraightenUp+: Monitoring of Posture during Daily Activities for Older Persons Using Wearable Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.