ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Human Activity Recognition: A Dynamic Inductive Bias Selection Perspective.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Wearable Sensors and Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we study activity recognition in the context of sensor-rich environments. In these environments, many different constraints arise at various levels during the data generation process, such as the intrinsic characteristics of the sensing devices, their energy and computational constraints, and their collective (collaborative) dimension. These constraints have a fundamental impact on the final activity recognition models as the quality of the data, its availability, and its reliability, among other things, are not ensured during model deployment in real-world configurations. Current approaches for activity recognition rely on the activity recognition chain which defines several steps that the sensed data undergo: This is an inductive process that involves exploring a hypothesis space to find a theory able to explain the observations. For activity recognition to be effective and robust, this inductive process must consider the constraints at all levels and model them explicitly. Whether it is a bias related to sensor measurement, transmission protocol, sensor deployment topology, heterogeneity, dynamicity, or stochastic effects, it is essential to understand their substantial impact on the quality of the data and ultimately on activity recognition models. This study highlights the need to exhibit the different types of biases arising in real situations so that machine learning models, e.g., can adapt to the dynamicity of these environments, resist sensor failures, and follow the evolution of the sensors' topology. We propose a metamodeling approach in which these biases are specified as hyperparameters that can control the structure of the activity recognition models. Via these hyperparameters, it becomes easier to optimize the inductive processes, reason about them, and incorporate additional knowledge. It also provides a principled strategy to adapt the models to the evolutions of the environment. We illustrate our approach on the SHL dataset, which features motion sensor data for a set of human activities collected in real conditions. The obtained results make a case for the proposed metamodeling approach; noticeably, the robustness gains achieved when the deployed models are confronted with the evolution of the initial sensing configurations. The trade-offs exhibited and the broader implications of the proposed approach are discussed with alternative techniques to encode and incorporate knowledge into activity recognition models.
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.