Cited by 530Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionGait Recognition and Analysis

SisFall: A Fall and Movement Dataset

Open access
Sucerquia, Angela, López, José, Vargas-Bonilla, Jesús·2017·Sensors

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Research on fall and movement detection with wearable devices has witnessed promising growth. However, there are few publicly available datasets, all recorded with smartphones, which are insufficient for testing new proposals due to their absence of objective population, lack of performed activities, and limited information. Here, we present a dataset of falls and activities of daily living (ADLs) acquired with a self-developed device composed of two types of accelerometer and one gyroscope. It consists of 19 ADLs and 15 fall types performed by 23 young adults, 15 ADL types performed by 14 healthy and independent participants over 62 years old, and data from one participant of 60 years old that performed all ADLs and falls. These activities were selected based on a survey and a literature analysis. We test the dataset with widely used feature extraction and a simple to implement threshold based classification, achieving up to 96% of accuracy in fall detection. An individual activity analysis demonstrates that most errors coincide in a few number of activities where new approaches could be focused. Finally, validation tests with elderly people significantly reduced the fall detection performance of the tested features. This validates findings of other authors and encourages developing new strategies with this new dataset as the benchmark.

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 · 10.3390/s17010198

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Unlike datasets such as SisFall that rely on invasive wearable sensors (IMUs), which may alter motor behaviour, the study employed a non-intrusive computer vision approach.

    “unlike datasets such as SisFall [10] that rely on invasive wearable sensors (IMUs), which may alter motor behaviour, we employed a non-intrusive computer vision approach.”

    From Safe Fall: Use of Predictive Modeling and Machine Vision Techniques for Fall Analysis and Fall Quality (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Experimental Set-Up section (no page provided) confirms that SisFall used a waist-mounted device containing accelerometers and a gyroscope. The paper does not say that this device was invasive or that it might alter motor behaviour. Its Introduction instead describes cameras as intrusive; the citing authors’ choice of computer vision is their own, not a finding attributed to SisFall. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Cluster 1 profile aligns with uncontrolled descent patterns in public datasets, where untrained subjects exhibit sharp acceleration spikes and erratic limb flailing.

    “This profile aligns with the “uncontrolled descent” patterns frequently observed in the unfiltered raw data of public datasets, where untrained subjects exhibit sharp acceleration spikes and erratic limb flailing [10].”

    From Safe Fall: Use of Predictive Modeling and Machine Vision Techniques for Fall Analysis and Fall Quality (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (§4.2; page not supplied) report that young adults simulated falls faster and with greater acceleration than elderly participants, and the Introduction says SisFall makes fall data publicly available. The paper does not describe these patterns as frequent in unfiltered raw data, identify the subjects as untrained, or report erratic limb flailing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Traditional binary classifications (Fall vs. ADL) found in public datasets like SisFall or MobiAct focus solely on detection.

    “Unlike traditional binary classifications (Fall vs. ADL) found in public datasets like SisFall or MobiAct [10], which focus solely on detection, this approach reveals the qualitative spectrum of the motor response.”

    From Safe Fall: Use of Predictive Modeling and Machine Vision Techniques for Fall Analysis and Fall Quality (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction and §3.4.3 describe classifying activities as falls or ADLs to evaluate fall detection. But §3.4.4 and the Discussion also describe activity-by-activity analysis, so “solely on detection” overstates what the SisFall paper does. The paper discusses MobiFall, not MobiAct, and does not establish the claim about MobiAct. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [2]Lord S. Sherrington C. Menz H. Falls in Older People: Risk Factors and Strategies for Prevention 1st ed. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK 2001
  2. [23]Xue Y. Jin L. A Naturalistic 3D Acceleration-based Activity Dataset and Benchmark Evaluations Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics (SMC) Istanbul, Turkey 10–13 October 2010 4081 4085

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sucerquia, A., López, J., & Vargas-Bonilla, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Antioquia (CO)
  • SISTEMIC, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antiquia UDEA, Calle 70 No. 52-21, 1226 Medellín, Colombia
Corresponding author
López, José
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2017-01-20
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
198
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2543632018
Cited by
530
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository University of Antioquia (University of Antioquia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Universidad de Antioquia UdeA (20139080)
  • Ruta N (512C-2013)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
Keywords
fall detection, activities of daily living, wearable sensors, accelerometer, gyroscope, older adults, threshold-based classification, feature extraction, benchmark dataset
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Activities of Daily Living, Algorithms, Humans, Middle Aged, Movement, 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