ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022
Effects of sliding window variation in the performance of acceleration-based human activity recognition using deep learning models.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The SEWAbility system: a video-based job analysis framework for understanding task-specific job demands.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A deep learning framework for gait-based frailty classification using inertial measurement units.PloS one · 2026Article
- Multi-attention Mechanism for Enhanced Pseudo-3D Prostate Zonal Segmentation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- A Multi-Feature Fusion Approach for Road Surface Recognition Leveraging Millimeter-Wave Radar.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Deep Learning-Based Framework Oriented to Pathological Gait Recognition with Inertial Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Anthropometry and diagnostic aware deep learning for exercise assessment.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Article
- Improved Surface Electromyogram-Based Hand-Wrist Force Estimation Using Deep Neural Networks and Cross-Joint Transfer Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Novel Framework Based on Deep Learning Architecture for Continuous Human Activity Recognition with Inertial Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Enhancing human activity recognition for the elderly and individuals with disabilities through optimized Internet-of-Things and artificial intelligence integration with advanced neural networks.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Active learning strategies for robotic tactile texture recognition tasks.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- Age-Related Reliability of B-Mode Analysis for Tailored Exosuit Assistance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) models are very useful for human activity recognition (HAR); these methods present better accuracy for HAR when compared to traditional, among other advantages. DL learns from unlabeled data and extracts features from raw data, as for the case of time-series acceleration. Sliding windows is a feature extraction technique. When used for preprocessing time-series data, it provides an improvement in accuracy, latency, and cost of processing. The time and cost of preprocessing can be beneficial especially if the window size is small, but how small can this window be to keep good accuracy? The objective of this research was to analyze the performance of four DL models: a simple deep neural network (DNN); a convolutional neural network (CNN); a long short-term memory network (LSTM); and a hybrid model (CNN-LSTM), when variating the sliding window size using fixed overlapped windows to identify an optimal window size for HAR. We compare the effects in two acceleration sources': wearable inertial measurement unit sensors (IMU) and motion caption systems (MOCAP). Moreover, short sliding windows of sizes 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 frames to long ones of sizes 50, 75, 100, and 200 frames were compared. The models were fed using raw acceleration data acquired in experimental conditions for three activities: walking, sit-to-stand, and squatting. Results show that the most optimal window is from 20-25 frames (0.20-0.25s) for both sources, providing an accuracy of 99,07% and F1-score of 87,08% in the (CNN-LSTM) using the wearable sensors data, and accuracy of 98,8% and F1-score of 82,80% using MOCAP data; similar accurate results were obtained with the LSTM model. There is almost no difference in accuracy in larger frames (100, 200). However, smaller windows present a decrease in the F1-score. In regard to inference time, data with a sliding window of 20 frames can be preprocessed around 4x (LSTM) and 2x (CNN-LSTM) times faster than data using 100 frames.
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.