Cited by 447Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis

Transfer learning for activity recognition: a survey

Open access
Cook, Diane, Feuz, Kyle D., Krishnan, Narayanan C.·2013·Knowledge and Information Systems

Abstract

Many intelligent systems that focus on the needs of a human require information about the activities being performed by the human. At the core of this capability is activity recognition, which is a challenging and well-researched problem. Activity recognition algorithms require substantial amounts of labeled training data yet need to perform well under very diverse circumstances. As a result, researchers have been designing methods to identify and utilize subtle connections between activity recognition datasets, or to perform transfer-based activity recognition. In this paper we survey the literature to highlight recent advances in transfer learning for activity recognition. We characterize existing approaches to transfer-based activity recognition by sensor modality, by differences between source and target environments, by data availability, and by type of information that is transferred. Finally, we present some grand challenges for the community to consider as this field is further developed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10115-013-0665-3

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although TL enhances the accuracy of several tasks in pattern recognition and computer vision, there is an essential issue related to the source data type used by TL as compared to the target dataset.

    “Nevertheless, although TL enhances the accuracy of several tasks in the fields of pattern recognition and computer vision [154, 155], there is an essential issue related to the source data type used by the TL as compared to the target dataset.”

    From Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [154]

    Section 4 (Physical Setting Differences; page unavailable) identifies differences between source and target datasets, including sensor type, and says that different sensor modalities make transfer learning much more difficult. The Introduction describes improved performance as a goal of transfer learning, but the copy does not establish the claimed accuracy gains across several pattern-recognition and computer-vision tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • We follow state-of-the-art UDA evaluation methodology by performing stratified split on target domain data into 60% training, 20% validation, and 20% testing.

    “For each run, we follow the state-of-the-art UDA evaluation methodology [9,44,54] by performing stratified split on the target domain data into 60% for training, 20% for validation, and 20% for testing.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chattopadhyay R Krishnan N Panchanathan S 2011 Topology preserving domain adaptation for addressing subject based variability in semg signal 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series
  2. Krishnan N 2010 A Computational Framework for Wearable Accelerometer-Based PhD thesis Arizona State University
  3. Venkatesan A Krishnan N Panchanathan S 2010 Cost-sensitive boosting for concept drift International Workshop on Handling Concept Drift in Adaptive Information Systems 2010 41 47

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cook, D., Feuz, K. D., & Krishnan, N. C.
Affiliations
Washington State University (US)
Corresponding author
Cook, Diane
Venue
Knowledge and Information Systems
Published
2013-06-07
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
537-556
ISSN
  • 0219-1377 (ISSN-L)
  • 0219-3116
OpenAlex
W2037265949
Cited by
447
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
14.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Knowledge and Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB009675, R01EB015853)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Keywords
transfer learning, activity recognition, human activity recognition, sensor modalities, domain adaptation, data availability, information transmission

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review