Ensemble Methods for Classification of Physical Activities from Wrist Accelerometry

被引:56
作者
Chowdhury, Alok Kumar [1 ]
Tjondronegoro, Dian [1 ]
Chandran, Vinod [1 ]
Trost, Stewart G. [2 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Fac Sci & Engn, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Exercise & Nutr Sci, QLD Ctr Childrens Hlth Res, Inst Hlth & Biomed Innovat, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
MOTION SENSORS; MACHINE LEARNING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; RANDOM FOREST; BAGGING; BOOSTED DECISION TREES; ENERGY-EXPENDITURE; HIP; RECOGNITION; ALGORITHMS; BEHAVIOR; SENSORS;
D O I
10.1249/MSS.0000000000001291
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
Purpose: To investigate whether the use of ensemble learning algorithms improve physical activity recognition accuracy compared to the single classifier algorithms, and to compare the classification accuracy achieved by three conventional ensemble machine learning methods (bagging, boosting, random forest) and a custom ensemble model comprising four algorithms commonly used for activity recognition (binary decision tree, k nearest neighbor, support vector machine, and neural network). Methods: The study used three independent data sets that included wrist-worn accelerometer data. For each data set, a four-step classification framework consisting of data preprocessing, feature extraction, normalization and feature selection, and classifier training and testing was implemented. For the custom ensemble, decisions from the single classifiers were aggregated using three decision fusion methods: weighted majority vote, naBve Bayes combination, and behavior knowledge space combination. Classifiers were cross-validated using leave-one subject out cross-validation and compared on the basis of average F1 scores. Results: In all three data sets, ensemble learning methods consistently outperformed the individual classifiers. Among the conventional ensemble methods, random forest models provided consistently high activity recognition; however, the custom ensemble model using weighted majority voting demonstrated the highest classification accuracy in two of the three data sets. Conclusions: Combining multiple individual classifiers using conventional or custom ensemble learning methods can improve activity recognition accuracy from wrist-worn accelerometer data.
引用
收藏
页码:1965 / 1973
页数:9
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2010, SIGKDD Explor.
  • [2] Physical Activities Monitoring Using Wearable Acceleration Sensors Attached to the Body
    Arif, Muhammad
    Kattan, Ahmed
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (07):
  • [3] Activity recognition from user-annotated acceleration data
    Bao, L
    Intille, SS
    [J]. PERVASIVE COMPUTING, PROCEEDINGS, 2004, 3001 : 1 - 17
  • [4] Calibration and Validation of Wearable Monitors
    Bassett, David R., Jr.
    Rowlands, Alex
    Trost, Stewart G.
    [J]. MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2012, 44 : S32 - S38
  • [5] Random forests
    Breiman, L
    [J]. MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) : 5 - 32
  • [6] Breiman L, 1998, ANN STAT, V26, P801
  • [7] On the use of ensemble of classifiers for accelerometer-based activity recognition
    Catal, Cagatay
    Tufekci, Selin
    Pirmit, Elif
    Kocabag, Guner
    [J]. APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2015, 37 : 1018 - 1022
  • [8] Optimal Placement of Accelerometers for the Detection of Everyday Activities
    Cleland, Ian
    Kikhia, Basel
    Nugent, Chris
    Boytsov, Andrey
    Hallberg, Josef
    Synnes, Kare
    McClean, Sally
    Finlay, Dewar
    [J]. SENSORS, 2013, 13 (07): : 9183 - 9200
  • [9] Hip and Wrist Accelerometer Algorithms for Free-Living Behavior Classification
    Ellis, Katherine
    Kerr, Jacqueline
    Godbole, Suneeta
    Staudenmayer, John
    Lanckriet, Gert
    [J]. MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE, 2016, 48 (05) : 933 - 940
  • [10] A random forest classifier for the prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical activity from wrist and hip accelerometers
    Ellis, Katherine
    Kerr, Jacqueline
    Godbole, Suneeta
    Lanckriet, Gert
    Wing, David
    Marshall, Simon
    [J]. PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2014, 35 (11) : 2191 - 2203