Recognizing Human Activities from Raw Accelerometer Data Using Deep Neural Networks
Abstract
Activity recognition from wearable sensor data has been researched for many years. Previous works usually extracted features manually, which were hand-designed by the researchers, and then were fed into the classifiers as the inputs. Due to the blindness of manually extracted features, it was hard to choose suitable features for the specific classification task. Besides, this heuristic method for feature extraction could not generalize across different application domains, because different application domains needed to extract different features for classification. There was also work that used auto-encoders to learn features automatically and then fed the features into the K-nearest neighbor classifier. However, these features were learned in an unsupervised manner without using the information of the labels, thus might not be related to the specific classification task. In this paper, we recommend deep neural networks (DNNs) for activity recognition, which can automatically learn suitable features. DNNs overcome the blindness of hand-designed features and make use of the precious label information to improve activity recognition performance. We did experiments on three publicly available datasets for activity recognition and compared deep neural networks with traditional methods, including those that extracted features manually and auto-encoders followed by a K-nearest neighbor classifier. The results showed that deep neural networks could generalize across different application domains and got higher accuracy than traditional methods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Two five-layer DBNs with different structures applied to Opportunity, USC-HAD, and DSA datasets demonstrated improved HAR accuracy over traditional ML methods for all three datasets.
“In [157], two five-layer DBNs with different structures are applied to the Opportunity dataset [90], USC-HAD dataset [94], and DSA dataset [87], and the results demonstrate improved accuracy for HAR over traditional ML methods for all the three datasets.”
From Deep Learning in Human Activity Recognition with Wearable Sensors: A Review on Advances (2022) · cites this paper as [157]
DBN accuracy on Opportunity, USC-HAD, and DSA datasets was 82.3% (1.6% improvement), 99.2% (13.9% improvement), and 99.1% (15.9% improvement), respectively.
“Specifically, the accuracy for the Opportunity, USC-HAD, and DSA datasets are 82.3% (1.6% improvement over traditional methods), 99.2% (13.9% improvement), and 99.1% (15.9% improvement), respectively.”
From Deep Learning in Human Activity Recognition with Wearable Sensors: A Review on Advances (2022) · cites this paper as [157]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Zhang, L., Wu, X., & Luo, D.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Venue
- 2015 IEEE 14th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-12
- Pages
- 865-870
- OpenAlex
- W2295647538
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 1.64
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- activity recognition, accelerometer data, wearable sensors, deep neural network, automatic feature learning, supervised feature learning, domain generalization, autoencoder, k-nearest neighbors
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