ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Wearable Sensor-Based Human Activity Recognition: Performance and Interpretability of Dynamic Neural Networks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Machine Learning for Human Activity Recognition Using Auxetic cTPU Knee-Worn Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Explainable and Subject-Independent VOSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Wearable sensor data-driven sports posture recognition using the ST-GCN spatio-temporal graph convolutional network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Towards Explainable Multimodal Sensing for Swimming Analysis: Early Findings from the SWIM-360 Project.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Abstract
Human Activity Recognition (HAR) using wearable sensor data is increasingly important in healthcare, rehabilitation, and smart monitoring. This study systematically compared three dynamic neural network architectures-Finite Impulse Response Neural Network (FIRNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)-to examine their suitability and specificity for HAR tasks. A controlled experimental setup was applied, training 16,500 models across different delay lengths and hidden neuron counts. The investigation focused on classification accuracy, computational cost, and model interpretability. LSTM achieved the highest classification accuracy (98.76%), followed by GRU (97.33%) and FIRNN (95.74%), with FIRNN offering the lowest computational complexity. To improve model transparency, Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) was applied to both input and hidden layers. The results showed that gyroscope Y-axis data was consistently the most informative, while accelerometer Y-axis data was the least informative. LRP analysis also revealed that GRU distributed relevance more broadly across hidden units, while FIRNN relied more on a small subset. These findings highlight trade-offs between performance, complexity, and interpretability and provide practical guidance for applying explainable neural wearable sensor-based HAR.
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.