Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of accelerometer based multi-sensor versus single-sensor activity recognition systems

Gao, Lei, Bourke, A.K., Nelson, John·2014·Medical Engineering & Physics

Abstract

Physical activity has a positive impact on people's well-being and it had been shown to decrease the occurrence of chronic diseases in the older adult population. To date, a substantial amount of research studies exist, which focus on activity recognition using inertial sensors. Many of these studies adopt a single sensor approach and focus on proposing novel features combined with complex classifiers to improve the overall recognition accuracy. In addition, the implementation of the advanced feature extraction algorithms and the complex classifiers exceed the computing ability of most current wearable sensor platforms. This paper proposes a method to adopt multiple sensors on distributed body locations to overcome this problem. The objective of the proposed system is to achieve higher recognition accuracy with "light-weight" signal processing algorithms, which run on a distributed computing based sensor system comprised of computationally efficient nodes. For analysing and evaluating the multi-sensor system, eight subjects were recruited to perform eight normal scripted activities in different life scenarios, each repeated three times. Thus a total of 192 activities were recorded resulting in 864 separate annotated activity states. The methods for designing such a multi-sensor system required consideration of the following: signal pre-processing algorithms, sampling rate, feature selection and classifier selection. Each has been investigated and the most appropriate approach is selected to achieve a trade-off between recognition accuracy and computing execution time. A comparison of six different systems, which employ single or multiple sensors, is presented. The experimental results illustrate that the proposed multi-sensor system can achieve an overall recognition accuracy of 96.4% by adopting the mean and variance features, using the Decision Tree classifier. The results demonstrate that elaborate classifiers and feature sets are not required to achieve high recognition accuracies on a multi-sensor system.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.012

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Authors
Gao, L., Bourke, A. K., & Nelson, J.
Venue
Medical Engineering & Physics
Published
2014-03-11
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
779-785
ISSN
  • 1350-4533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-4030
OpenAlex
W2013582641
Cited by
266
References
3
FWCI
24.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of accelerometer based multi-sensor versus single-sensor activity recognition systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.012
The paper
Gao, L., Bourke, A. K., & Nelson, J. (2014). Evaluation of accelerometer based multi-sensor versus single-sensor activity recognition systems. Medical Engineering & Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.