Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36091986›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022

Effects of sliding window variation in the performance of acceleration-based human activity recognition using deep learning models.

Milagros Jaén-Vargas, Karla Miriam Reyes Leiva, Francisco Fernandes, Sérgio Barroso Gonçalves, Miguel Tavares Silva, Daniel Simões Lopes, José Javier Serrano Olmedo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Milagros Jaén-VargasBioinstrumentation and Nanomedicine Laboratory, Center for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Karla Miriam Reyes LeivaBioinstrumentation and Nanomedicine Laboratory, Center for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Francisco FernandesINESC ID, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sérgio Barroso GonçalvesIDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Miguel Tavares SilvaIDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Daniel Simões LopesINESC ID, Lisbon, Portugal.
José Javier Serrano OlmedoBioinstrumentation and Nanomedicine Laboratory, Center for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AccelerometerDeep learningHuman activity recognitionMotion capturePattern recognitionSliding windows

Identifiers

PMID36091986
PMCPMC9455026

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.