The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Feature Selection for Wearable Smartphone-Based Human Activity Recognition with Able bodied, Elderly, and Stroke Patients
Open accessAbstract
Human activity recognition (HAR), using wearable sensors, is a growing area with the potential to provide valuable information on patient mobility to rehabilitation specialists. Smartphones with accelerometer and gyroscope sensors are a convenient, minimally invasive, and low cost approach for mobility monitoring. HAR systems typically pre-process raw signals, segment the signals, and then extract features to be used in a classifier. Feature selection is a crucial step in the process to reduce potentially large data dimensionality and provide viable parameters to enable activity classification. Most HAR systems are customized to an individual research group, including a unique data set, classes, algorithms, and signal features. These data sets are obtained predominantly from able-bodied participants. In this paper, smartphone accelerometer and gyroscope sensor data were collected from populations that can benefit from human activity recognition: able-bodied, elderly, and stroke patients. Data from a consecutive sequence of 41 mobility tasks (18 different tasks) were collected for a total of 44 participants. Seventy-six signal features were calculated and subsets of these features were selected using three filter-based, classifier-independent, feature selection methods (Relief-F, Correlation-based Feature Selection, Fast Correlation Based Filter). The feature subsets were then evaluated using three generic classifiers (Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine, j48 Decision Tree). Common features were identified for all three populations, although the stroke population subset had some differences from both able-bodied and elderly sets. Evaluation with the three classifiers showed that the feature subsets produced similar or better accuracies than classification with the entire feature set. Therefore, since these feature subsets are classifier-independent, they should be useful for developing and improving HAR systems across and within populations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Other studies [44,58] employed Relief-F that takes a filter-method approach to feature selection to keep only the most relevant features.”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
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
Feature selection for high-dimensional data: a fast correlation-based filter solution
Yu, L., & Liu, H. (2003) · Cited by 2,305
A Survey on Wearable Sensor-Based Systems for Health Monitoring and Prognosis
Pantelopoulos, A., & Bourbakis, N. G. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C (Applications and Reviews) · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2009.2032660 · Cited by 2,296
Activity recognition from accelerometer data
Ravi, N., Dandekar, N., Mysore, P., & Littman, M. L. (2005) · Cited by 1,422
Computational Methods of Feature Selection
(2007) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781584888796 · Cited by 1,282
Activity Recognition and Monitoring Using Multiple Sensors on Different Body Positions
Maurer, U., Smailagic, A., Siewiorek, D. P., & Deisher, M. E. (2006) · Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks · doi:10.1109/bsn.2006.6 · Cited by 606
USC-HAD: a daily activity dataset for ubiquitous activity recognition using wearable sensors
Zhang, M., & Sawchuk, A. A. (2012) · Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1145/2370216.2370438 · Cited by 554
Feature Selection for Machine Learning: Comparing a Correlation-Based Filter Approach to the Wrapper
Hall, M. A., & Smith, L. A. (1999) · Cited by 526
Avci, A., Bosch, S., Marin-Perianu, M., Marin-Perianu, R., & Havinga, P. (2010) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 443
Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing
Dey, A. K., Chu, H.-H., & Hayes, G. R. (2012) · doi:10.1145/2370216 · Cited by 332
A Review and Taxonomy of Activity Recognition on Mobile Phones
İncel, Ö. D., Köse, M., & Ersoy, C. (2013) · BioNanoScience · doi:10.1007/s12668-013-0088-3 · Cited by 234
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nweke, H. F., Teh, Y. W., Al-garadi, M. A., & Alo, U. R. (2018) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.056 · Cited by 930
Multi-sensor fusion in body sensor networks: State-of-the-art and research challenges
Gravina, R., Alinia, P., Ghasemzadeh, H., & Fortino, G. (2017) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2016.09.005 · Cited by 899
Sensor-based and vision-based human activity recognition: A comprehensive survey
Minh Dang, L., Min, K., Wang, H., Jalil Piran, M., Hee Lee, C., & Moon, H. (2020) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2020.107561 · Cited by 730
A Survey on Activity Detection and Classification Using Wearable Sensors
Cornacchia, M., Ozcan, K., Zheng, Y., & Velipasalar, S. (2016) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2016.2628346 · Cited by 427
Nweke, H. F., Wah, T. Y., Mujtaba, G., & Al-Garadi, M. A. (2018) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2018.06.002 · Cited by 408
Metadata
- Authors
- Capela, N. A., Lemaire, E. D., & Baddour, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Capela, Nicole A.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-04-17
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0124414
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4401457
- OpenAlex
- W2066338981
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 16.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
- Keywords
- human activity recognition, feature selection, accelerometer, gyroscope, stroke patients, older adults, mobility monitoring, rehabilitation, ReliefF, correlation-based feature selection, fast correlation-based filter
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Aged, Humans, Man-Machine Systems, Monitoring, Physiologic, Safety, Case-Control Studies, Stroke
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
