ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Analysis of Force-Sensitive Resistors and Triaxial Accelerometers for Sitting Posture Classification.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sedentary behaviors, including poor postures, are significantly detrimental to health, particularly for individuals losing motion ability. This study presents a posture detection system utilizing four force-sensitive resistors (FSRs) and two triaxial accelerometers selected after rigorous assessment for consistency and linearity. We compared various machine learning algorithms based on classification accuracy and computational efficiency. The k-nearest neighbor (KNN) algorithm demonstrated superior performance over Decision Tree, Discriminant Analysis, Naive Bayes, and Support Vector Machine (SVM). Further analysis of KNN hyperparameters revealed that the city block metric with K = 3 yielded optimal classification results. Triaxial accelerometers exhibited higher accuracy in both training (99.4%) and testing (99.0%) phases compared to FSRs (96.6% and 95.4%, respectively), with slightly reduced processing times (0.83 s vs. 0.85 s for training; 0.51 s vs. 0.54 s for testing). These findings suggest that, apart from being cost-effective and compact, triaxial accelerometers are more effective than FSRs for posture detection.
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.