Activity Recognition of Assembly Tasks Using Body-Worn Microphones and Accelerometers
Open accessAbstract
In order to provide relevant information to mobile users, such as workers engaging in the manual tasks of maintenance and assembly, a wearable computer requires information about the user's specific activities. This work focuses on the recognition of activities that are characterized by a hand motion and an accompanying sound. Suitable activities can be found in assembly and maintenance work. Here, we provide an initial exploration into the problem domain of continuous activity recognition using on-body sensing. We use a mock "wood workshop" assembly task to ground our investigation. We describe a method for the continuous recognition of activities (sawing, hammering, filing, drilling, grinding, sanding, opening a drawer, tightening a vise, and turning a screwdriver) using microphones and three-axis accelerometers mounted at two positions on the user's arms. Potentially "interesting" activities are segmented from continuous streams of data using an analysis of the sound intensity detected at the two different locations. Activity classification is then performed on these detected segments using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) on the sound channel and hidden Markov models (HMMs) on the acceleration data. Four different methods at classifier fusion are compared for improving these classifications. Using user-dependent training, we obtain continuous average recall and precision rates (for positive activities) of 78 percent and 74 percent, respectively. Using user-independent training (leave-one-out across five users), we obtain recall rates of 66 percent and precision rates of 63 percent. In isolation, these activities were recognized with accuracies of 98 percent, 87 percent, and 95 percent for the user-dependent, user-independent, and user-adapted cases, respectively.
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?
Generative approaches such as naïve Bayes classifiers, Markov models and dynamic Bayes networks have yielded promising results for behavior modeling and offline activity recognition when a large amount of labeled data is available.
“Generative approaches such as naïve Bayes classifiers, Markov models and dynamic Bayes networks have yielded promising results for behavior modeling and offline activity recognition when a large amount of labeled data is available [33–40].”
From Forecasting occurrences of activities (2017) · cites this paper as [36]
Cites
Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical medicine and rehabilitation
Bonato, P. (2005) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/1743-0003-2-2 · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From action to activity: Sensor-based activity recognition
Liu, Y., Nie, L., Liu, L., & Rosenblum, D. S. (2016) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.096 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
Deep Learning-Based Gait Recognition Using Smartphones in the Wild
Zou, Q., Wang, Y., Wang, Q., Zhao, Y., & Li, Q. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2020.2985628 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Ontology‐based activity recognition in intelligent pervasive environments
Chen, L., & Nugent, C. (2009) · International Journal of Web Information Systems · doi:10.1108/17440080911006199 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Assessment of Tremor Activity in the Parkinson’s Disease Using a Set of Wearable Sensors
Rigas, G., Tzallas, A. T., Tsipouras, M. G., Bougia, P., Tripoliti, E. E., Baga, D., Fotiadis, D. I., Tsouli, S. G., & Konitsiotis, S. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine · doi:10.1109/titb.2011.2182616 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Recognition of dietary activity events using on-body sensors
Amft, O., & Tröster, G. (2008) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2007.11.007 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Analysis of animal accelerometer data using hidden Markov models
Leos‐Barajas, V., Photopoulou, T., Langrock, R., Patterson, T. A., Watanabe, Y. Y., Murgatroyd, M., & Papastamatiou, Y. P. (2017) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12657 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Sensing Fine-Grained Hand Activity with Smartwatches
Laput, G., & Harrison, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300568 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Action Recognition in Manufacturing Assembly using Multimodal Sensor Fusion
Al-Amin, M., Tao, W., Doell, D., Lingard, R., Yin, Z., Leu, M. C., & Qin, R. (2019) · Procedia Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.288 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Human activity recognition based on a sensor weighting hierarchical classifier
Banos, O., Damas, M., Pomares, H., Rojas, F., Delgado-Marquez, B., & Valenzuela, O. (2013) · Soft Computing · doi:10.1007/s00500-012-0896-3 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Forecasting occurrences of activities
Minor, B., & Cook, D. J. (2017) · Pervasive and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2016.09.010 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“Generative approaches such as naïve Bayes classifiers, Markov models and dynamic Bayes networks have yielded promising results for behavior modeling and offline activity recognition when a large amount of labeled data is available [33-40].”
BackgroundHwang, I., Cha, G., & Oh, S. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI) · doi:10.1109/mfi.2017.8170441 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ward, J. A., Lukowicz, P., Troster, G., & Starner, T. E.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- University of Passau (DE)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1553-1567
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-9292
- OpenAlex
- W2166712377
- Cited by
- 431
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 25.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Hand Gesture Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
- Keywords
- activity recognition, assembly tasks, wearable computing, accelerometer, on-body sensing, hand movement, sound intensity, classifier combination, hidden Markov models, linear discriminant analysis, maintenance work, wood workshop
- MeSH terms
- Acceleration, Activities of Daily Living, Artificial Intelligence, Clothing, Humans, Ergonomics, Industry, Motor Activity, Occupations, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sound Spectrography, Task Performance and Analysis, Transducers, Workplace, Monitoring, Ambulatory
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