The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition
Open accessAbstract
In the past years, traditional pattern recognition methods have made great progress. However, these methods rely heavily on manual feature extraction, which may hinder the generalization model performance. With the increasing popularity and success of deep learning methods, using these techniques to recognize human actions in mobile and wearable computing scenarios has attracted widespread attention. In this paper, a deep neural network that combines convolutional layers with long short-term memory (LSTM) was proposed. This model could extract activity features automatically and classify them with a few model parameters. LSTM is a variant of the recurrent neural network (RNN), which is more suitable for processing temporal sequences. In the proposed architecture, the raw data collected by mobile sensors was fed into a two-layer LSTM followed by convolutional layers. In addition, a global average pooling layer (GAP) was applied to replace the fully connected layer after convolution for reducing model parameters. Moreover, a batch normalization layer (BN) was added after the GAP layer to speed up the convergence, and obvious results were achieved. The model performance was evaluated on three public datasets (UCI, WISDM, and OPPORTUNITY). Finally, the overall accuracy of the model in the UCI-HAR dataset is 95.78%, in the WISDM dataset is 95.85%, and in the OPPORTUNITY dataset is 92.63%. The results show that the proposed model has higher robustness and better activity detection capability than some of the reported results. It can not only adaptively extract activity features, but also has fewer parameters and higher accuracy.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes an LSTM-CNN architecture that feeds raw mobile sensor data into a two-layer LSTM followed by convolutional layers, with global average pooling and batch normalization to reduce parameters and speed convergence. It reports high accuracy/F1 on UCI-HAR, WISDM, and OPPORTUNITY and compares favorably with CNN and DeepConvLSTM baselines.
Key findings
- On three public datasets, reported overall accuracy/F1 is UCI-HAR 95.78% (abstract/conclusion; experimental section says 95.80% accuracy), WISDM 95.85% (abstract/conclusion; experimental section says 95.75% accuracy), and OPPORTUNITY 92.63%; without the Null class, OPPORTUNITY accuracy is 87.58%.
- Compared with the CNN of Yang et al. and DeepConvLSTM under the same scenario, LSTM-CNN increased about 7% on OPPORTUNITY and averaged 3% on UCI-HAR and WISDM by F1 score.
- Replacing the fully connected layer with GAP reduced parameters: model B has 27,462 parameters versus more than 502 thousand for model A, about 94% less, with almost the same performance; adding BN raised F1 to 93.35%, and adding LSTM layers raised UCI-HAR F1 to 95.78%.
- Hyperparameter tests on UCI-HAR found Adam was the best optimizer, batch size 192 gave the highest accuracy, and 192 filters in the second convolutional layer gave F1 96.38% (4% over 64 filters) but increased model parameters by more than 70%.
Methods
- Architecture: preprocessed sensor data passes through two LSTM layers (32 memory cells each, 64 total), then two convolutional layers (64 filters of size 1×5 with stride 2; 128 filters of size 1×3 with stride 1), with max-pooling between them, followed by GAP, BN, and a dense Softmax output layer.
- Data: UCI-HAR (30 subjects, 6 activities, 50 Hz, 748,406 samples), WISDM (36 subjects, 6 activities, 20 Hz, 1,098,209 samples, unbalanced), and OPPORTUNITY (4 subjects, 17 activities plus Null class, 30 Hz, 113 channels). Preprocessing used linear interpolation, 0–1 normalization, and sliding windows of length 128 for UCI/WISDM and 24 for OPPORTUNITY, with 50% overlap.
- Training/evaluation: Keras with TensorFlow backend, cross-entropy loss, Adam optimizer, batch size 192, 200 epochs, learning rate 0.001; evaluated with accuracy and F1 score, confusion matrices, and comparisons to CNN and DeepConvLSTM.
Limitations
- The paper states WISDM and OPPORTUNITY are imbalanced, so overall accuracy is not an appropriate measure and F1 is used; it also notes relatively poor discrimination between sitting and standing in UCI-HAR, with recall and precision in the range of 92%–93%.
- The paper states LSTM layers slow computation because each time step depends on the previous one and cannot be computed in parallel; LSTM-CNN took 9,416 ms per epoch versus 5,156 ms for model D, and GAP can shift training pressure to convolutional layers and slow convergence, which BN was added to address.
- Evident from the text: reported metrics are inconsistent across sections (e.g., UCI-HAR 95.78% vs 95.80%; WISDM 95.85% vs 95.75%), and OPPORTUNITY evaluation uses only four subjects, limiting generalization claims.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 Own result · 20 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 9 Not checked yet · 4 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the overall accuracy of the model in the UCI-HAR dataset is 95.78%, in the WISDM dataset is 95.85%, and in the OPPORTUNITY dataset is 92.63%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the overall accuracy of the model in the UCI-HAR dataset is 95.78%, in the WISDM dataset is 95.85%, and in the OPPORTUNITY dataset is 92.63%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the overall accuracy of the model in the UCI-HAR dataset is 95.78%, in the WISDM dataset is 95.85%, and in the OPPORTUNITY dataset is 92.63%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the model parameters increase by more than 70%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > 2) EFFECT OF NUMBER OF FILTERS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, an overall accuracy of 92.63% was achieved.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, when the Null class is removed from the classification task (see Table 10), our method achieved an overall accuracy of 87.58% in the gesture recognition task.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be seen that the accuracy reaches the highest when the batch size is selected as 192.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > 3) EFFECT OF BATCH SIZE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the F 1 score of this model reaches 93.35%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, it outperforms the model C by 1% on average.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was relatively poor discrimination between sitting and standing.The recall and precision were in the range of 92%∼93%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, there are more than 502 thousand model parameters, of which the parameters of fully-connected layers occupy the most.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Compared with the CNN model of Yang et al., LSTM-CNN has a significant increase of about 7% for the OPPORTUNITY dataset and is superior to the DeepConvLSTM model.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“F 1 score reaches 96.38% when the number of filters is selected as 192, which outperforms when the number of filters is 64 by 4%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > 2) EFFECT OF NUMBER OF FILTERS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And it takes 1681 milliseconds per epoch in the training stage.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameters of the model B are only 27462, which is about 94% less than that of the model A while the performance remains almost the same.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that the model parameters have been greatly reduced under adding the GAP layer to the network.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are 5156 milliseconds per epoch and 9416 milliseconds per epoch, respectively.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be seen that the model trained by Adam optimizer has the best fitting effect and the fluctuation of gradient descent curve is the most stable.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > 1) EFFECT OF OPTIMIZER
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eventually, the F 1 score reached 95.78%, 95.85% and 92.63% on the UCI-HAR, WISDM and OPPORTUNITY datasets, respectively.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can also be seen that LSTM-CNN outperforms the other two models on the UCI-HAR and WISDM datasets, with the best-reported result increasing by an average of 3%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the UCI-HAR dataset, there were 2940 instances that have been correctly classified, and the overall accuracy reached 95.80%.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main reason may be that the two activities are similar from the perspective of motion sensors.It is difficult to mine deeper information only by acceleration and angular velocity data.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To address this problem, researchers have turned to deep learning methods that could automatically extract appropriate features from raw sensor data during the training phase and present the low-level original temporal features with high-level abstract sequences.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > II. RELATED WORK
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24]- [27]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the above models could generally recognize human activities, the overall network structure is relatively complex.In addition, these models have a large number of parameters, which results in high computational cost.It is difficult to be used in occasions that require high real-time performance.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > II. RELATED WORK
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To sum up, compared with the methods proposed in other literatures, the LSTM-CNN model shows consistent superior performance and has good generalization.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > VI. CONCLUSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model proposed in this paper not only could achieve high recognition accuracy but also greatly simplify the model structure.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model C adds a BN layer after the GAP layer to stabilize the output of the upper layer.It speeds up the convergence of the model and improves accuracy.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, GAP sums out the spatial information, so it is more robust to the spatial transformation of the input.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. GLOBAL AVERAGE POOLING LAYER
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no parameter to optimize in the GAP layer.Thus, it achieves the goal of reducing global model parameters.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. GLOBAL AVERAGE POOLING LAYER
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among them, the recordings of 22 subjects were used to build the training set, and the rest was used to build the test set.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
plainn = 22- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The training set is composed of the recordings of 30 subjects and the remaining recordings of 6 subjects are used to build the test set.The two parts are completely separate.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
plainn = 30- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can not only adaptively extract activity features, but also has fewer parameters and higher accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § II. RELATED WORK · plain
“The results show that the proposed model not only has high accuracy but also has good generalization ability and fast convergence speed.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § II. RELATED WORK · plain
In the paper
“Although the proposed model has high accuracy and brief architecture, it was only evaluated on one dataset which has just six activities, which does not prove that the proposed model has good generalization ability.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > II. RELATED WORK
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Machine learning methods may rely heavily on heuristic manual feature extraction in most daily human activity recognition tasks.It is usually limited by human domain knowledge [23].”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > II. RELATED WORK
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The BN layer normalizes and reconstructs the input data on each batch of training samples to ensure the stability of the output of the previous layer, so as to improve the training speed and accuracy.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. BATCH NORMALIZATION LAYER
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the training process, the distribution of input data of each layer would continuously change due to the weight parameters of the upper layer are constantly updated.Therefore, it is necessary to change the weight parameters to adapt to this new distribution, which leads to difficulty in network training and slows down the convergence speed.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. BATCH NORMALIZATION LAYER
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CNN has gained increasing popularity because of its ability to learn unique representations from images or speech [34].”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > B. CONVOLUTIONAL AND POOLING LAYERS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To sums up, the strategy of using the global average pooling layer and batch normalization layer to replace the fully-connected layer is effective.Moreover, the method of using LSTM to extract the temporal information to improve model performance is favorable.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Recordings of activities based on mobile sensors are temporal sequences.
- Rests on an assumption: LSTM has the ability to capture temporal information from sequential data.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each node of the fully-connected layer is connected to the nodes of the upper layer so that the features extracted from the upper layer could be merged.It makes up for the shortcomings of the GAP layer in this regard.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > E. OUTPUT LAYER
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results showed an excellent effect, but the model converged hardly, causing a lot of time to be wasted in the training stage.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > II. RELATED WORK
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, in the model Krizhevsky [35], the first fully-connected layer FC1 has 4096 nodes, and the output of the upper pooling layer Max-Pool3 has 9216 nodes.Thus, there would be more than 37 million weight parameters between the MaxPool3 layer and the FC1 layer, which would consume a lot of memory and computational cost.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. GLOBAL AVERAGE POOLING LAYER
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can not only avoid complex feature extraction but also has high recognition accuracy under the premise of a few model parameters.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > VI. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
LSTM is a variant of RNN that is more suitable for processing temporal sequences.
“LSTM is a variant of the recurrent neural network (RNN), which is more suitable for processing temporal sequences.”
The paper relies on this without support.
LSTM can eliminate the gradient vanishing limitation of RNN.
“LSTM is a variety of RNN, which could eliminate this limitation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
LSTM has great advantages in feature extraction of sequence data than convolutional neural networks due to its special memory cells.
“LSTM has great advantages in feature extraction of sequence data than convolutional neural networks due to its special memory cells.”
The paper relies on this without support.
RNN can take advantage of the chronological relationship between sensor readings.
“RNN could take advantage of the chronological relationship between sensor readings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
RNN has the problem of gradient vanishing, which hinders the ability of the network to model between raw sensor data and human activities in a long context window.
“Although RNN has the ability to capture temporal information from sequential data, it has the problem of gradient vanishing, which hinders the ability of the network to model between raw sensor data and human activities in a long context window.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The more convolution kernels are used, the more hidden features could be mined in the input samples.
“Generally speaking, the more convolution kernels are used, the more hidden features could be mined in the input samples.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The max-pooling layer filters interference noise caused by the unconscious jitter of the human body.
“It serves two purposes.One is to reduce the parameters while maintaining dominant features, the other is to filter the interference noise caused by the unconscious jitter of the human body.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The WISDM and OPPORTUNITY datasets are imbalanced.
“The WISDM and OPPORTU-NITY mentioned above are both imbalanced datasets.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hyper-parameters have a great impact on classification model performance.
“Hyper-parameters have a great impact on the classification model performance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The weight parameters of CNN mainly concentrate on the fully-connected layer.
“The weight parameters of CNN mainly concentrate on the fully-connected layer.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recordings of activities based on mobile sensors are temporal sequences.
“The recordings of activities based on mobile sensors are temporal sequences and LSTM has the ability to capture temporal information from sequential data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
LSTM has the ability to capture temporal information from sequential data.
“The recordings of activities based on mobile sensors are temporal sequences and LSTM has the ability to capture temporal information from sequential data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When training LSTM layers, the calculation of each time step depends on the output of the previous time step.
“When training LSTM layers, the calculation of each time step depends on the output of the previous time step.”
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?
In the citing paper
“In general, it is examined that the more convolution kernels are used, the more hidden features of the input samples could be extracted [48].”
From Deep CNN-LSTM With Self-Attention Model for Human Activity Recognition Using Wearable Sensor (2022) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“In contrast to these three models, i.e.,sequential LSTM layers (LSTM-CNN) before Convolution layer [48], sequential Convolution and dropout layers (CNN-LSTM) before LSTM layer [59], parallel LSTM layers (Parrallel LSTM-CNN) with Convolution layer [60], our chosen model achieved the best testing result of 99.93% for H-Activity dataset and 98.76% and 93.11% for MHEALTH and UCI-HAR dataset respective”
From Deep CNN-LSTM With Self-Attention Model for Human Activity Recognition Using Wearable Sensor (2022) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Hence, all of the above-mentioned models [48], [59], [60] were implemented with exact parameters described in the respective literature except the input and output layer to match our dataset.”
From Deep CNN-LSTM With Self-Attention Model for Human Activity Recognition Using Wearable Sensor (2022) · cites this paper as [48]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > Abstract
“the overall accuracy of the model in the UCI-HAR dataset is 95.78%”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
“For the UCI-HAR dataset, there were 2940 instances that have been correctly classified, and the overall accuracy reached 95.80%.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Fig. 1 shows the acceleration waveform of 2.56 seconds (128 points in total) of each activity”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > B. WISDM
Reported 2.56 · recomputed 6.4
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > III. DATASET DESCRIPTION
“The UCI-HAR dataset has the largest number of volunteers, which means that this dataset was constructed from the recordings of 30 subjects.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > B. WISDM
“Its experimental object consists of 36 subjects.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
“In model D, the data captured from mobile sensors are firstly fed into two layers of LSTMs and then transmitted to convolutional layers for feature extraction.”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > D. IMPACT OF NETWORK STRUCTURE ON MODEL PERFORMANCE
“In our work, we added another layer of LSTM, in a total of 2 layers, on the basis of model D to further improve the model performance.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > Abstract
“in the WISDM dataset is 95.85%”
§ LSTM-CNN Architecture for Human Activity Recognition > C. EVALUATION ON THREE PUBLIC DATASETS
“the overall accuracy of the WISDM dataset (an unbalanced dataset) reached 95.75%.”
Citations
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
Activity recognition using cell phone accelerometers
Kwapisz, J. R., Weiss, G. M., & Moore, S. A. (2011) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1964897.1964918 · Cited by 2,912 · cited 1×
“The WISDM dataset [31] has a total of 1098209 samples, and the percentage of the total samples associated with each activity was shown in Table 3.”
BackgroundDeep Convolutional and LSTM Recurrent Neural Networks for Multimodal Wearable Activity Recognition
Ordóñez, F., & Roggen, D. (2016) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s16010115 · Cited by 2,761 · cited 2×
“[25] proposed an activity recognition classi-fier, which combined deep CNN and LSTM to classify 27 hand gestures and five movements.”
BackgroundDeep learning for sensor-based activity recognition: A survey
Wang, J., Chen, Y., Hao, S., Peng, X., & Hu, L. (2019) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2018.02.010 · Cited by 2,014 · cited 1×
“Human activity recognition (HAR) plays an important role in people’s daily lives because it has the ability to learn profound advanced knowledge about human activities from raw sensor data [1].”
BackgroundHuman activity recognition with smartphone sensors using deep learning neural networks
Ronao, C. A., & Cho, S.-B. (2016) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.032 · Cited by 1,215
Sensor-Based Activity Recognition
Chen, L., Hoey, J., Nugent, C. D., Cook, D. J., & Yu, Z. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2012.2198883 · Cited by 1,074
(2015) · Cited by 989
Collecting complex activity datasets in highly rich networked sensor environments
Roggen, D., Calatroni, A., Rossi, M., Holleczek, T., Forster, K., Troster, G., Lukowicz, P., Bannach, D., Pirkl, G., Ferscha, A., et al. (2010) · 2010 Seventh International Conference on Networked Sensing Systems (INSS) · doi:10.1109/inss.2010.5573462 · Cited by 788
The Opportunity challenge: A benchmark database for on-body sensor-based activity recognition
Chavarriaga, R., Sagha, H., Calatroni, A., Digumarti, S. T., Tröster, G., Millán, J. D. R., & Roggen, D. (2013) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2012.12.014 · Cited by 742 · cited 3×
“In terms of the sensor setting, theOPPORTUNITY challenge guidelines [33] were adopted.”
Method
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 863
Ng, H. R., Zhong, X. R., Nam, Y., & Youn, J.-H. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app132413053 · Cited by 4
Assessment of IMU Configurations for Human Activity Recognition Using Ensemble Learning
Murphy, S. J., & Vitali, R. V. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3440215 · Cited by 3
Research on TCN Model Based on SSARF Feature Selection in the Field of Human Behavior Recognition
Zhang, W., Yu, G., & Deng, S. (2024) · IET Biometrics · doi:10.1049/2024/4982277 · Cited by 3
Balaha, H. M., & Hassan, A. E.-S. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-95439-6.00005-3 · Cited by 3
Pavliuk, O., & Mishchuk, M. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825909 · Cited by 3
Automated Sidewalk Surface Detection Using Wearable Accelerometry and Deep Learning
Park, D.-E., Youn, J.-H., & Song, T.-S. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25134228 · Cited by 3
Handling of Labeling Uncertainty in Smart Homes using Generalizable Fuzzy Features
Demongivert, C., Bouchard, K., Gaboury, S., Lussier, M., Ngankam, H. K., Couture, M., Bier, N., & Giroux, S. (2021) · International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT) · doi:10.1145/3462203.3475909 · Cited by 3
Hybrid deep learning framework for human activity recognition
Pushpalatha, S., & Math, S. (2022) · International journal of nonlinear analysis and applications · doi:10.22075/ijnaa.2022.5673 · Cited by 3
Gesture Recognition Using Machine Learning for Light Communication Systems
Webber, J. L., Mehbodniya, A., Arafa, A., & Alwakeel, A. S. (2022) · International Mobile and Embedded Technology Conference (MECON) · doi:10.1109/mecon53876.2022.9752211 · Cited by 3
(2017) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789004360846 · Cited by 3
Automated Categorization of Behavioral Quality Through Deep Neural Networks
Pagliuca, P., Milano, N., & Nolfi, S. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE) · doi:10.1109/metroxraine54828.2022.9967505 · Cited by 3
Healthy Aging: A Proactive Model to Prevent Self-neglecting Behavior in Smart Homes
Chambers, R., & Fahim, M. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom) · doi:10.1109/healthcom54947.2022.9982760 · Cited by 3
Human Activity Recognition Using 1-Dimensional CNN and Comparison with LSTM
Kashyap, S. K., Mahalle, P. N., & Shinde, G. R. (2022) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4364-5_72 · Cited by 3
Arokiaraj, S. P., & Viswanathan, N. (2023) · Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.3233/jifs-221551 · Cited by 3
Human Activity Recognition with smartphone sensors data using CNN-LSTM
Sharma, A., Singh, P. B., Madhu, C., Garg, N., & Joshi, G. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches in Technology and Management for Social Innovation (IATMSI) · doi:10.1109/iatmsi56455.2022.10119372 · Cited by 3
Conditional Human Activity Signal Generation and Generative Classification with a GPT-2 Model
Zilelioglu, H., Khodabandelou, G., Chibani, A., & Amirat, Y. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn54540.2023.10191464 · Cited by 3
A Hybrid Deep Learning-Based Approach for Human Activity Recognition Using Wearable Sensors
Sharma, D., Roy, A., Bag, S. P., Singh, P. K., & Badr, Y. (2023) · Studies in big data · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-40688-1_11 · Cited by 3
Deep Learning Networks for Complex Activity Recognition Based on Wrist-Worn Sensor
Mekruksavanich, S., & Jitpattanakul, A. (2023) · IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON) · doi:10.1109/tencon58879.2023.10322430 · Cited by 3
Activity recognition for elderly care using genetic search
Biswal, A., Panigrahi, C. R., Behera, A., Nanda, S., Weng, T., Pati, B., & Malu, C. (2024) · Computer Science and Information Systems · doi:10.2298/csis230622003b · Cited by 3
Student Activity Recognition in Classroom Environments Using Transfer Learning
Deshpande, A., & Deshpande, V. (2023) · International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Networks and Security (ICCINS) · doi:10.1109/iccins58907.2023.10450091 · Cited by 3
Human Activity Recognition Using Efficientnet-B0 Deep Learning Model
Silpa, A. S., Benifa, J. V. B., Anu, K. P., & Vijayakumar, A. (2023) · International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control for Engineering and Business Systems (ICCEBS) · doi:10.1109/iccebs58601.2023.10448623 · Cited by 3
Multi-head CNN-based activity recognition and its application on chest-mounted sensor-belt
Verma, U., Tyagi, P., & Aneja, M. K. (2024) · Engineering Research Express · doi:10.1088/2631-8695/ad43b9 · Cited by 3
Ningrum, M. P., Mutia, R., Azmi, H., & Khalifah, H. D. (2025) · Public Research Journal of Engineering Data Technology and Computer Science · doi:10.57152/predatecs.v2i2.1625 · Cited by 3
Understanding the audience experience of contemporary visual arts at Geevor Mine World Heritage Site
Bagnall, G., & Randall, J. M. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429053498-14 · Cited by 3
Comparative Performance Study on Human Activity Recognition with Deep Neural Networks
Gajjala, K. S., Ramesh, A. K., Nakano, K., & Chakraborty, B. (2021) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74826-5_21 · Cited by 3
Klasifikasi Human Activity Recognition Menggunakan Metode CNN
Hakim, A. A. (2021) · Jurnal Repositor · doi:10.22219/repositor.v3i2.1265 · Cited by 3
Privacy-Aware Human Activity Classification using a Transformer-based Model
Thipprachak, K., Tangamchit, P., & Lerspalungsanti, S. (2022) · IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) · doi:10.1109/ssci51031.2022.10022115 · Cited by 3
Human Activity Recognition Using CNN and Lstm Deep Learning Algorithms
Vinaya, R. M., & Mara, G. C. (2023) · Journal Of Advanced Zoology · doi:10.17762/jaz.v44is6.2353 · Cited by 3
Hamza, K., Riaz, Q., Imran, H. A., Hussain, M., & Krüger, B. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24196167 · Cited by 3
The Use of Transfer Learning for Activity Recognition in Instances of Heterogeneous Sensing
Hernandez-Cruz, N., Nugent, C., Zhang, S., & McChesney, I. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11167660 · Cited by 3
Wang, X., Wang, Y., Lu, C., Yu, H., He, H., & Li, Z. (2021) · International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems · doi:10.1109/icamechs54019.2021.9661535 · Cited by 4
A Survey of Motion Data Processing and Classification Techniques Based on Wearable Sensors
Xiaoqiong, X., Xuemei, 熊. X., Keda, Z., & Chao, L. (2023) · IgMin Research · doi:10.61927/igmin123 · Cited by 2
Hanchinamani, S., Tigadi, P. S., Puttanavvar, P., Patilkulkarni, D., & Patil, P. C. (2024) · International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET) · doi:10.1109/incet61516.2024.10593236 · Cited by 2
Zhang, H. (2024) · Molecular & cellular biomechanics · doi:10.62617/mcb936 · Cited by 2
WASENN: Wavelet Assisted Stochastic Enabled Neural Network for Human Activity Recognition
Sengupta, R., Polian, I., & Hayes, J. P. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular Papers · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2025.3540564 · Cited by 2
A Federated Learning Based Hybrid Deep Learning Framework for Enhanced Human Activity Recognition
Azmoudeh, J., Arghaee, S., Valizadeh, P., Dandani, S., Havangi, I., & Yaghmaee, M. H. (2024) · International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1109/iccke65377.2024.10874707 · Cited by 2
A Temporal-Channel-Spatial Attention Network for Skiing Recognition Based on Multigraph Generation
Zhang, Y., Fei, Q., Chen, Z., & Liu, X. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3551001 · Cited by 2
User Behavior Prediction with Deep Learning: An Evaluation of CNN, LSTM, RNN, and Hybrid Models
Sreedevi, S., Rajashekar, Ayesha, S., Basha, M. S. A., & Prathibha, L. (2025) · International Conference on Integrated Circuits and Communication Systems (ICICACS) · doi:10.1109/icicacs65178.2025.10967848 · Cited by 2
Fatlawi, H. K., & Kiss, A. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3579926 · Cited by 2
Wu, X., & Zhao, B. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-9891-2_38 · Cited by 2
Lin, X.-Q., Lin, C.-J., Jhang, J., & Liang, S. (2025) · International Journal of Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1007/s40815-025-02094-x · Cited by 2
Sit-and-Reach Pose Detection Based on Self-Train Method and Ghost-ST-GCN
Jiang, S., Cui, H., & Jin, L. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25185624 · Cited by 2
Incept-LSTM: deep learning model for action recognition
Verma, U., Tyagi, P., & Aneja, M. K. (2025) · Journal of Instrumentation · doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/10/t10002 · Cited by 2
Human Activity Recognition Using Spatio-Temporal Dual Attention with Cross-Sensor Attention
Chandirakumar, M., Kanagarajah, T., Kalanantharasan, N., Wickramanayake, S., & Meedeniya, D. (2025) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn64981.2025.11228134 · Cited by 2
Wibowo, I. K., Fatichah, C., Suciati, N., & Muchammad Ainun Fakhri, S. (2025) · International Electronics Symposium (IES) · doi:10.1109/ies67184.2025.11162000 · Cited by 2
Diffusion-facilitated knowledge distillation in human activity recognition
Wang, L., Zhang, L., Cheng, D., Yao, M., Wu, H., & Song, A. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.132517 · Cited by 2
TCP-HAR: On-Device Transferable and Copyright-Preserving Human Activity Recognition
Sacco, A., Palermo, B., Figliolino, G., Contoli, C., Marchetto, G., & Esposito, F. (2026) · Pervasive and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2026.102163 · Cited by 2
Khosiin, M. W., Lin, J. J., Suryo, E. A., Negara, K. P., Aknuranda, I., & Chen, C.-S. (2026) · Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering · doi:10.1061/jccee5.cpeng-7157 · Cited by 2
Indonesian Sign Language (BISINDO) Recognition using Long Short-Term Memory Method
Gunaya, I. W., Kesiman, M. W. A., & Suputra, P. H. (2025) · International Conference on Computer System, Information Technology, and Electrical Engineering (COSITE) · doi:10.1109/cosite68330.2025.11414365 · Cited by 2
Multimodal Fusion-Based Human Action Recognition Using Wi-Fi CSI and Smartwatch Sensors
Wang, J., Cai, X., Dai, X., Xia, M. Y., Shi, C., & Chen, W. (2026) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2026.3686886 · Cited by 2
Foucher, J., Collet, A., Goff, K. L., Rakotomamonjy, T., Juppet, V., Descatoire, T., Landrieu, J., Plat-Robain, M., Denquin, F., Grunwald, A. J., et al. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3210526 · Cited by 2
Dense Labeling of Human Activity Recognition Using a U-Net++ Network Based on Inertial Sensor Data
Wen, H., Zhang, H., Lei, Z., & Liang, X. (2022) · International Congress on Image and Signal Processing (CISP) · doi:10.1109/cisp-bmei56279.2022.9980288 · Cited by 2
Behavior recognition research based on reinforcement learning for dynamic key feature selection
Zhang, T., Ma, C., Sun, H., Yan, L., Wang, B., & Fang, Y. (2022) · International Symposium on Advances in Informatics, Electronics and Education (ISAIEE) · doi:10.1109/isaiee57420.2022.00054 · Cited by 3
Predicting Human Activity – State of the Art
Awong, L. E. E., & Zielinska, T. T. (2023) · Pomiary, Automatyka, Robotyka · doi:10.14313/par_248/31 · Cited by 2
Kumar, S. A., & Rajesh, K. P. (2023) · Indian Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.17485/ijst/v16i35.882 · Cited by 2
Enhancing Human Action Recognition in High-Resolution Videos using ConvLSTM and LRCN model
Pandey, S., & Kumar, N. (2023) · International Conference on Communication, Computing and Industry 4.0 (C2I4) · doi:10.1109/c2i659362.2023.10430885 · Cited by 2
Human Activity Recognition Using EfficientNet-B2 Deep Learning Model
S, A. P., Benifa, J. V. B., Anu, K. P., & Antony, C. M. (2023) · International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control for Engineering and Business Systems (ICCEBS) · doi:10.1109/iccebs58601.2023.10449221 · Cited by 2
Improving Performance and Explainability of Sensor-Based Human Activity Recognition
Mekruksavanich, S., Jantawong, P., & Jitpattanakul, A. (2024) · Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering (ECTI DAMT & NCON) · doi:10.1109/ectidamtncon60518.2024.10480073 · Cited by 2
HARFMR: Human Activity Recognition with Feature Masking and Reconstruction
Cui, W., Chen, Y., Huang, Y. Q., Liu, C., & Zhu, T. (2024) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57919-6_6 · Cited by 2
Thiruvenkatam, P., Thangavel, P., Balasubramanian, K., & Sekar, S. (2024) · International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1142/s021800142456007x · Cited by 2
SenseMLP: a parallel MLP architecture for sensor-based human activity recognition
Li, W., Guo, J., & Wu, H. (2024) · Multimedia Systems · doi:10.1007/s00530-024-01384-y · Cited by 2
Alblwi, A. (2024) · Journal of Computational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2024.102377 · Cited by 2
Shanmukha Aditya, G., Aggarwal, A., Karan, S., Gupta, D., Palaniswamy, S., & Venugopalan, M. (2024) · International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) · doi:10.1109/icccnt61001.2024.10726027 · Cited by 2
Enhancing Computational Model for Human Motion Recognition Using Deep Learning
Yadav, R. K., Daniel, A., Kumar, B., Sakhare, A. V., Moriwal, R., & Pawar, R. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Signal Processing and Effective Communication Technologies (INSPECT) · doi:10.1109/inspect63485.2024.10896050 · Cited by 2
Luo, Y., Yuan, C., Cheng, L., Wu, M., & Yang, W. (2025) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2025.3545660 · Cited by 2
Son, C.-S., & Kang, W. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3590407 · Cited by 2
Machine-Generated Hierarchical Structure of Human Activities to Reveal How Machines Think
Altın, M., Gürsoy, F., & Xu, L. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3053084 · Cited by 5
Using LSTM Models on Accelerometer Data to Improve Accuracy of Tap Strap 2 Wearable Keyboard
Mrazek, K., & Mohd, T. K. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98404-5_3 · Cited by 2
Kim, S., Bennett, C. C., Henkel, Z., Lee, J.-J., Stanojević, Č., Baugus, K., Bethel, C. L., Piatt, J. A., & Šabanović, S. (2023) · Intelligent Service Robotics · doi:10.1007/s11370-023-00496-0 · Cited by 2
A Comprehensive Review of Deep Learning for Activity Recognition
Thakur, D., & Fortino, G. (2024) · Internet of things · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-60027-2_4 · Cited by 2
Altunkaya, S. (2024) · Journal of Applied Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.bbe.2024.09.005 · Cited by 2
A New Model for Assembly Task Recognition: A Case Study of Seru Production System
Torkul, O., Selvi, İ. H., Şişci, M., & Diren, D. D. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3484955 · Cited by 2
Khalaf, H., & Riyadh, M. (2024) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0236952 · Cited by 2
Intelligent Video Recording Optimization using Activity Detection for Surveillance Systems
Laboratoire LITAN, É. S. E. S. E. T. D. L. E. D. N., Elmir, Y., Touati, H., du Numérique, É. S. E. S. E. T. D. L. E., Melizou, O., & du Numérique, É. S. E. S. E. T. D. L. E. (2025) · Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Informatica · doi:10.47745/ausi-2024-0015 · Cited by 2
Distance graph routing capsule network with vote elimination for human activity recognition
Feraydounraad, E., Hoseini, K., & Nazerfard, E. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128236 · Cited by 2
Computers and Independent Study
Jarvis, H. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-994-6.ch023 · Cited by 2
Managing Localization Delay for Cloud-assisted AR Applications Via LSTM-driven Overload Control
Czentye, J., Gerö, B. P., & Sonkoly, B. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) · doi:10.1109/aivr52153.2021.00023 · Cited by 2
Human Activities Analysis Using Machine Learning Approaches
Gaur, D., & Dubey, S. K. (2022) · Algorithms for intelligent systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-5747-4_39 · Cited by 2
A Hybrid Deep Neural Network for Classifying Transportation Modes based on Human Activity Vibration
Mekruksavanich, S., Jantawong, P., You, I., & Jitpattanakul, A. (2022) · International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology · doi:10.1109/kst53302.2022.9729079 · Cited by 2
Head Gesture Recognition Based on Capacitive Sensors Using Deep Learning Algorithms
Severin, I.-C., & Dobrea, D.-M. (2021) · Buletinul Institutului Politehnic din Iaşi. Secţia Electrotehnică. Energetică. Electronică · doi:10.2478/bipie-2021-0018 · Cited by 2
Human Activity Recognition Using LDA And Stochastic Configuration Networks
Yuan, G., Zang, C., & Zeng, P. (2022) · International Conference on Computer Science, Electronic Information Engineering and Intelligent Control Technology (CEI) · doi:10.1109/cei57409.2022.9950204 · Cited by 2
Human Activity Recognition using 1D-CNN and Stacked LSTM
Waghchaware, S., & Joshi, R. D. (2022) · International Conference on Signal and Information Processing · doi:10.1109/iconsip49665.2022.10007450 · Cited by 2
Human Activity Recognition with Video Classification
Nath, R. K., Rasool, A., Gangwar, N., & Jha, H. (2022) · International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication Control and Networking (ICAC3N) · doi:10.1109/icac3n56670.2022.10074309 · Cited by 2
Liftawi, S. M., Yousef, I., & Kaied, M. W. (2024) · Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology · doi:10.37934/araset.52.1.6888 · Cited by 2
Joint Optimization of Topology and Hyperparameters of Hybrid DNNs for Sentence Classification
Rogers, B., Noman, N., Chalup, S. K., & Moscato, P. (2022) · IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) · doi:10.1109/cec55065.2022.9870285 · Cited by 3
Skeleton Based Human Activity Prediction in Gait Thermal images using Siamese Networks
Srihari, P., & Harikiran, J. (2022) · International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA) · doi:10.1109/iceca55336.2022.10009412 · Cited by 1
Human Activity Recognition Based on a Cascade Network Architecture Composed of DFSMN and ACGAN
Xie, J., Liang, X., & Xing, C. (2023) · International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/ihmsc58761.2023.00053 · Cited by 1
A Human Activity Recognition model based on CNN and Transformer
Wang, M., Liu, R., & Xiong, Y. (2024) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2816/1/012101 · Cited by 1
Deep Learning-Based Subject Independent Human Activity Recognition using Smart Lacelock Data
Neya, N. M., Sazonov, E. E., & Shen, X. (2024) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc53108.2024.10781739 · Cited by 1
Human Action Recognition in Multi-Level Convolutional Temporal Attention Network
Huang, Q., Chen, Z., Li, C., & Qian, W. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889140 · Cited by 1
Tang, R., Zheng, G., Suo, M., Chang, G., Han, S., & Luo, S. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC) · doi:10.1109/iccc62609.2024.10942084 · Cited by 1
Mrinali, A., & Gupta, P. (2025) · Journal of Optics · doi:10.1007/s12596-025-02753-0 · Cited by 1
Advancing Human Activity Recognition Using Ensemble Deep CNN-GRU Network
Khan, M. H., Ashfaq, N., Asif, A., & Farid, M. S. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91235-1_8 · Cited by 1
Saffari, M., Singh, Y. P., & Khodayar, M. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology · doi:10.1109/eit64391.2025.11103603 · Cited by 1
Tschurtschenthaler, K., & Schulte, A. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) · doi:10.1109/ichms65439.2025.11154371 · Cited by 1
Human Activity Recognition and Prediction using LSTM and Transformer
Soman, S. J., & Jeyaraj, J. R. A. (2025) · International Conference on Soft Computing for Security Applications (ICSCSA) · doi:10.1109/icscsa66339.2025.11170756 · Cited by 1
Kamiya, U., Kakiuchi, K., Kawamura, K., Ueda, K., Kawai, M., Matsui, A., & Negishi, N. (2025) · Journal of Equine Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/j.jevs.2025.105706 · Cited by 1
Deep Learning for Recognition of Object Manipulation Hand Gestures using Wearable Sensor Data
Sharples, J., & Martínez-Hernández, U. (2025) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man63969.2025.11217817 · Cited by 1
Fine-grained temporal–spatial cues for theft recognition in surveillance videos
Ansari, M. A., Mewada, A., Kumar, A., Jayaswal, R., Yadav, A. S., Kumar, L., & Bansal, D. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-27031-8 · Cited by 1
Zihad, A. A., Rahman, N., Salimi, N., Jion, A. A., Islam, M. S., Majumder, S., & Chakma, S. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Internet of Things (AIBThings) · doi:10.1109/aibthings66987.2025.11296226 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Xia, K., Huang, J., & Wang, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (CN)
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 56855-56866
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3011785450
- Cited by
- 851
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 169 · 2024: 169 · 2023: 185 · 2022: 136 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 14
- FWCI
- 40.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (512070901, 51637001)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
- Keywords
- human activity recognition, long short-term memory, convolutional neural networks, mobile sensor data, wearable computing, automatic feature extraction, global average pooling, batch normalization, UCI HAR dataset, WISDM dataset, Opportunity dataset
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
