See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337414007

Physical Activity Intensity Classification using a Convolutional Neural

Network and Wearable Accelerometer

Conference Paper · November 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 216

5 authors, including:

Arif Widianto Tommy Sugiarto

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology Industrial Technology Research Institute
5 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biomedical Devices for Incubator Application View project

AI COPD Diagnosis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tommy Sugiarto on 21 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The 16th International Confernce on Automation Technology (Automation 2019),
November 22-24, 2019, Taipei, Taiwan

Physical Activity Intensity Classification using a

Convolutional Neural Network and Wearable Accelerometer

Arif Widianto1, Tommy Sugiarto1,2,3, Yi-Jia Lin1, Yung-Hsiang Lee4,

and Wei-Chun Hsu1,2*
1 Graduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering NTUST, Taipei City, Taiwan
2 Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, NTUST, Taipei City, Taiwan
3 Information & Communication Research Laboratory, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu County, Taiwan
4 Sporting Educational Office, NTUST, Taipei City, Taiwan

*Corresponding author: wchsu@mail.ntust.edu.tw

Abstract: By measuring intensity using metabolic equivalent (MET) values, we can classify physical activity (PA) as
sedentary, light, moderate, or vigorous. Wearable accelerometers, which have been widely used to collect data
related to PA, can be used to measure intensity. Furthermore, improvements in deep learning, especially
convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which automatically extract features from data can facilitate classification.
Therefore, CNN was adopted in this study to evaluate its performance in classifying PA by extracting features from
wearable accelerometers placed on five locations and based on ground truth from MET values. We prepared a
temporal window (TW) and sliding window (SW) to evaluate model performance and determine which of these
considerably influenced the performance of the CNN. After determining the optimal TW and SW, we further
evaluated which sensor placement location influenced the network the most. A 5-s TW with a 20-frame SW and
sensor placed on the sternum demonstrated the optimal results followed by the sensor placed on the right wrist.

Keywords: Physical activity intensity; MET; wearable accelerometer; convolutional neural network; window size

1. Introduction necessary for deep learning frameworks, especially

Physical activity (PA) has become a parameter for
evaluating the health of a person and can be
categorized into sedentary, light, moderate, and
vigorous levels [1]. A study [2] reported that moderate
to vigorous PA performed for at least 60 minutes daily
benefits body composition, mental health, and
academic achievement in school-aged children.
The PA intensity required for certain tasks has been
evaluated as metabolic equivalent (MET) units; 1 MET is
approximately the amount of oxygen consumed when
sitting quietly on a chair, 3.5 mL kg-1min-1 [3]. However,
measuring METs is difficult because it requires
measurement of oxygen consumption and is limited to
a laboratory setting. In [4] and [5], a VO2000 and
Cosmed K4b2, respectively, were used to measure
oxygen consumption.
The rapid improvements in microelectromechanical
system-based sensors and wearable devices have
facilitated PA measurement. Studies measured PA by
placing accelerometers on the wrists [6] or ankles [7] of
healthy adults or on the skin of children [8].
Moreover, the rapid improvement in artificial
intelligence has improved PA classification. As reported
in [6], which used a supervised machine learning
algorithm to recognize PA. Manual features extraction,
however, is needed prior to classifying samples by using
machine learning. By contrast, features extraction is not
convolutional neural networks (CNNs), because they
are scale-invariant [9]. Studies have reported the ability
of deep neural networks for classifying PA [10] and data
from public datasets such as Opportunity and Skoda
[11].
Our previous investigation of accelerometer-based PA
intensity classification resulted in a CNN, which is the
novelty of our method proposed herein. Some studies
have used a statistical approach [12], a cut-point
approach in ROC analysis [5, 13-16], logistic regression
approach [17], and machine learning for recognizing
and classifying PA intensity [18] and machine learning
for PA recognition [6, 7, 19-23]. However, deep learning,
including Fully-Connected Deep Neural Network [24-26],
hybrid networks of CNN and recurrent neural network
[9, 11], and CNN model [27, 28], has been widely used
to classify PA [10]. One study [29] used deep learning
for classifying PA intensity; however, the model used
was artificial neural network, and the PA intensities
considered were different from those in this study.
This study evaluated a CNN for classifying PA with true
labels produced using MET values. We examined
performance using two variables: temporal window
(TW) and sliding window (SW). We subsequently
evaluated which features significantly influence the
model because wearing numerous sensors is
impractical. This paper is arranged as follows: Section 2
The 16th International Confernce on Automation Technology (Automation 2019),
November 22-24, 2019, Taipei, Taiwan
Fig. 1: Flow-chart of the protocol.
discusses our method, Section 3 presents the results,
and Section 4 draws conclusions.
2. Method
2.1 Participants, Equipment, and Protocol
Twelve individuals (age = 22.75 ± 3.85 years, height =
165 ± 6.98 cm, and weight = 62.17 ± 12.46 kg) agreed to
participate in this study, and each provided complete
set of data. Each participant was asked to perform eight
laboratory-scale PAs: slow walking, fast walking, jogging,
lying on a mattress, sitting with hands activity; standing
with hands activity; climbing up and down on stairs, and
resting. Excluding resting, which was performed for 6
minutes, all activities were performed for 4 minutes for
each. Only one individual who performed each activity
including resting for 4 minutes. Resting was performed
as an inter-trial activity to avoid fatigue and achieve a
MET value of <1.5 before the next activity. Participants
were advised not to perform any intensive movement
during resting or lying. The walking and jogging
activities were performed on a treadmill with at 0.5 m
s-1 for slow walking, 1.3 m s-1 for fast walking, and 1.67
m s-1 for jogging. The stair-climbing activity consisted of
traversing three 25-cm steps. Participants played a
mobile phone game during the sitting activity and
caught a ball with a partner during the standing activity.
Figure 1 provides a complete illustration.
Prior to the experiment, each participant provided
consent to wear five triaxial Axivity AX3 (Axivity Ltd,
Newcastle, UK) accelerometers placed on the left wrist
(LW), right wrist (RW), dominant-side shank (DShank),
lower back (L5), and sternum (between collarbones) as
shown in Figure 2. All participants were right-side
dominant. The range of each Axivity AX3 was set to ±8g,
and the sampling frequency was set to 100 Hz.
PA was classified on the basis of MET values provided
by a CORTEX Metalyzer® (CORTEX Biophysik Gmbh,
Leipzig, Germany), which utilizes face mask sensors to
measure O2 and CO2 flow and volume. Oxygen
consumption was used to infer the MET values. The
MET thresholds from [5] were used to classify each
activity as shown in Table 1.
Fig. 2: Illustration of sensors placement.
Table 1. MET-based Physical Activity
Classification
Threshold Class
MET<1.5 Sedentary
1.5≤MET<4 Light
4≤MET<7 Moderate
MET≥7 Vigorous
For its working principle, the Axivity AX3 sensors used
the real-time clock from the host computer to which it
was connected during setup. By setting the starting time
for the experiment according to the time shown on the
host computer, we synchronized the clocks.
2.2. Data Pre-processing
The data collected from Axivity AX3 were exported in
.csv format by using Open Movement 1.0.0.37 (OmGui)
and segmented by activity. The segmented signals were
resampled to 100 Hz, because of the fluctuating actual
sampling frequency. Butterworth band-pass filtering
with passband 1-20 Hz was applied. To avoid noise
caused by the transition between activities and thus to
ensure the robustness of our model, the first and last 5
seconds of data from resting, lying, sitting, and standing
activities were removed.
TW size and SW size were then fed into the network. A
TW divides time-series data into smaller segments
comprising sufficient information. The values we
selected for TW were 1, 2, and 5 s. An SW is useful for
data augmentation because it can be used to duplicate
data by sliding the starting frame while maintaining the
TW size. These variables may affect the performance of
the model; particularly the optimal TW size depends on
the number and period of the samples used [30]. The
values we prepared for SW size were 20-, 50-frames,
and no sliding window.
Raw MET values from the Cortex Metalyzer® were
exported into .xlsx file format with 1s intervals. The
values were resampled to 10 Hz and filtered using the
Butterworth low-pass filter with a passband of < 0.1 Hz.
We considered the mean value of a 1-min interval in the
middle of each activity to be the activity’s MET value for
each participant because participants were assumed to
be in a steady-state during this period. The mean values
The 16th International Confernce on Automation Technology (Automation 2019),
November 22-24, 2019, Taipei, Taiwan

were again averaged among all participants and this of precision and recall, as in Eq. (4), in which FP and FN
resulting mean was the MET value used for analysis. represent false positives and false negatives,
We used the leave one subject out (LOSO) method to respectively.
evaluate the performance of our model. Therefore, we
𝑇𝑃+𝑇𝑁
used 11 out of 12 participants’ data as a training 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 = (1)
𝑇𝑃+𝐹𝑃+𝑇𝑁+𝐹𝑁
dataset, and the remaining participant constituted the
validation and test datasets at a ratio of 7:3. We avoided 𝑇𝑃
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = (2)
imbalanced data by selecting only one resting activity 𝑇𝑃+𝐹𝑃
for each participant. We used seed number of 7 to keep 𝑇𝑃
the randomness same. 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 = (3)
𝑇𝑃+𝐹𝑁

2.3 CNN Model Architecture 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 × 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙

𝐹1 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 2 × ( ) (4)
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛+𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙
CNNs offer high performance in terms of spatial
dimension. It can adapt to changes and thus exhibit
2.5 Hardware and Software for Computation
scale invariance. Furthermore, CNNs extract local
All computation and training processes were conducted
dependency because they can consider adjacent signals
using Python 3.6.9 and the Keras 2.2.4 library with a
which tend to be correlated [9, 28].
Tensorflow 1.14.0 backend on a PC with a 12-core Intel®
A One-dimensional (1D) CNN (followed by a pooling
Core i7-8700 processor with 3.2 GHz clock speed, 16 GB
layer) was used for PA classification in [27] and
of RAM, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 with a 1.68 GHz
outperformed other models such as a deep belief
boost clock, 6 GB frame buffer, and 14 Gbps memory
networks, support vector machine, and discrete cosine
speed.
transform (DCT) because the CNN could completely
extract adjacent signals, whereas DCT, for example,
extracts only the information from the same axis.
However, a fully-connected layer may generalize the
output of convolutional layer before feeding to the
output layer. Therefore, a 1D CNN followed by pooling
and fully-connected layers was used in this study. The
architecture presented in this study is based on data
obtained using a 1-s TW and no SW. Accuracy of 0.9 on
the test datasets was our considered threshold. The
model is configured as follows: the first and second
layers are 1D convolutional layers with filter size 70 and
60, respectively and use a rectified linear unit (ReLU)
activation function. We initialized the kernels by using
glorot uniform and the same seed number. The third
layer is a 1D max-pooling layer followed by a flattening
layer that reshapes the output of the convolutional
layers into a 1D array as input for the fully-connected
layers. The first such layer comprises 18 units with a
ReLU activation function, and the second is the output
layer comprising 3 units with softmax activation
functions. During training process, we used Early
Stopping method with minimum delta was 0.03 and
used 5 iterations interval of patience. Accuracy of Fig. 3: Model’s architecture.
validation dataset was the monitored parameter and
”restore best weight” was used. Figure 3 presents the 3. Results and Discussion
complete architecture.
3.1 MET Values
2.4 Model Evaluation Parameters The ground truth is shown in Table 2. The MET values
Four parameters were calculated to evaluate model range from 1.4 to 6.88. Our protocol successfully
performance: accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. reduced the MET values to <1.5 for resting activity. As
Accuracy is the sum of true positives (TPs) and true presented in Table 2, only three classes were identified
negatives divided by all predictions, as in Eq. (1). in this study: sedentary, light, and moderate. This might
Precision is the rate of TPs among all predicted have been caused by the ability and superior endurance
positives, as in Eq. (2). Recall is the rate of TPs among all of young participants when do jogging. have been
positive samples, as in Eq. (3). F1 score is a combination caused by the ability and superior endurance of young
The 16th International Confernce on Automation Technology (Automation 2019),
November 22-24, 2019, Taipei, Taiwan

Fig. 4: Loss curve of the best model. Fig. 5: Accuracy curve of the best model.
participants when jogging. Previous reported which The dimension information for the validation and test
identified jogging as vigorous showed the range of age datasets are presented in Table 3, in which the first
of the participants is different from ours [5]. Running column states the number of samples, second shows
activity is suggested to be included in future studies in the product of the TW and sampling frequency, and
order to obtain PA intensity in vigorous level. third present the number of features extracted from the
five tri-axial Axivity AX3 accelerometers.
Table 2. True Labels for Classification
Activity MET [SD*] PA class 3.3 Model Performance
Slow walking 3.34 [0.32] Light The model architecture presented in this study was
Fast walking 5 [0.6] Moderate obtained from the result of 1s TW size without an SW
Jogging 6.88 [0.5] Moderate and has exhibited accuracy, precision, recall, and F1
Resting 1.39 [0.17] Sedentary score of 0.9. The average performance of the model
Lying 1.4 [0.12] Sedentary evaluated through LOSO validation was used to observe
Sitting 1.47 [0.14] Sedentary the influence of TW and SW size on model performance.
Standing 2.57 [0.5] Light
Climbing stairs 4.26 [0.51] Moderate Table 4. Model’s Performance: Test Scores of 1s
*
standard deviation TW size
SW size Acc. Prec. Recall F1-score
3.2 Datasets (frames) [SD] [SD] [SD] [SD]
We obtained a sufficient number of samples from just 0 .92 [.06] .91 [.09] .91 [.09] .9 [.11]
12 participants, unlike [27], which obtained 31688 20 .94 [.06] .93 [.09] .93 [.09] .93 [.09]
samples (constituting the training and test datasets) 50 .93 [.07] .92 [.1] .92 [.1] .91 [.12]
from 100 participants. The number of training samples
with a 1-s of TW and 0-, 20-, and 50-frames SWs were Table 5. Model’s Performance: Test Scores of 2s
21880, 109048, and 43672, respectively. With a 2-s TW TW size
and 0-, 20-, and 50-frames SWs were 10940, 108608, SW size Acc. Prec. Recall F1-score
43496, respectively. Finally, a 5-s TW and with 0-, 20-, (frames) [SD] [SD] [SD] [SD]
and 50-frames SWs were 4376, 107288, and 42968 0 .94 [.06] .93 [.09] .93 [.09] .92 [.11]
samples, respectively. 20 .96 [.05] .95 [.07] .95 [.07] .95 [.07]
50 .95 [.06] .94 [.09] .94 [.09] .93 [.11]
Table 3. Input Dimension of Validation and Test
Dataset Table 6. Model’s Performance: Test Scores of 5s
TW SW Validation TW size
Test Dataset
(s) (frames) Dataset SW size Acc. Prec. Recall F1-score
0 1400, 100, 15 600, 100, 15 (frames) [SD] [SD] [SD] [SD]
1 20 6977, 100, 15 2991, 100, 15 0 .94 [.06] .92 [.1] .92 [.1] .91 [.12]
50 2794, 100, 15 1198, 100, 15 20 .98 [.03] .97 [.04] .97 [.04] .97 [.04]
0 700, 200, 15 300, 200, 15 50 .96 [.06] .95 [.09] .95 [.09] .94 [.11]
2 20 6949, 200, 15 2979, 200, 15
50 2783, 200, 15 1193, 200, 15 In Table 4-6, the results obtained with 20- and 50- frame
0 280, 500, 15 120, 500, 15 SWs were not substantially more accurate than those
5 20 6865, 500, 15 2943, 500, 15 obtained without an SW. This is obtained by observing
50 2749, 500, 15 1179, 500, 15 the difference between the accuracy values with SW
and without SW for each TW size as we considered at
The 16th International Confernce on Automation Technology (Automation 2019),
November 22-24, 2019, Taipei, Taiwan
Fig. 6: Normalized confusion matrix of the best model on
test dataset.
least 0.05 increment for the test score in this study.
Since we used fixed SW size, this finding agrees with
[30], which concluded that fixed SW size is not an
effective approach. One thing should be noted is that
statement in [30] was for PA recognition. On the other
hand, by defining SW size we could augment the
samples and produced sufficient numbers of the
samples. Additionally, defining an appropriate SW size
may keep the variability of the evaluation parameter
values low. It can be observed in Table 4-6 that a 20-
frame SW size showed the lowest standard deviation
value compared to the others.
The highest accuracy and the lowest standard deviation
were our consideration to decide the best model. As
shown in Tables 4-6, the highest model performance
was obtained when 5-s TW size and 20-frame SW size.
This indicates that a 5-s TW may contain sufficient
information about PA patterns. The loss and accuracy
curves of training and validation are shown in Figure 4
and 5 respectively, while the confusion matrix is shown
in Figure 6. We noticed that our proposed model is able
to distinguish most of the samples with the accuracy for
sedentary-intensity is the highest, followed by
moderate-intensity, and light-intensity as the least
(Figure 6).
Table 7. Single Placement Comparison from the
Best Performance: Test Score
Acc. Prec. Recall F1-score
Position
[SD] [SD] [SD] [SD]
DShank .94 [.08] .95 [.07] .95 [.07] .94 [.08]
L5 .94 [.08] .93 [.09] .93 [.09] .93 [.1]
LW .93 [.06] .92 [.07] .92 [.07] .92 [.07]
RW .94 [.05] .94 [.06] .94 [.06] .94 [.06]
Sternum .98 [.01] .98 [.02] .98 [.02] .98 [.01]
3.4 Single Sensor Comparison
We further evaluated the sensor placement location
that influenced the model the most. Table 7 reveals that
each placement accurately distinguished PA intensity
since all evaluation parameters are above 0.9. The
accelerometer put on sternum is the most accurate.
This probably caused by the movement pattern and the
value of a certain axis that correspond to specific
activity. The result from DShank may face slightly
underfitting problem since the training accuracy is 0.93
which is less than the test accuracy. An accelerometer
placed on the LW can distinguish PA intensity with just
marginally inferior accuracy to placement on the RW.
This contrasts with the results obtained using the cut-
point approach [16], in which the accuracy of the
classification with the sensor put on LW was < 0.8
among right-side-dominant participants. Additionally,
placement on the RW was quite accurate in our study,
unlike [5], in which the RW was least accurate. However,
the protocol and age ranges of [16] and [5] differed
from ours. Even though the results from RW and LW are
lower than sternum, placing an accelerometer either on
right or left wrist become the best approaches since
placing an accelerometer on sternum or lower back may
be difficult to monitor PA intensity.
4. Conclusions
We evaluated the performance of a 1D CNN in
classifying PA as sedentary, light, moderate. We found
the optimal architecture through trial and error.
Additionally, we evaluated the influence of TW and SW.
Compared to the other studies, 1D CNN provided a good
performance to distinguish PA intensity. Setting an
optimal TW may maximize the evaluation parameter.
The best result was obtained from dataset with
combination of TW size of 5-s and SW size of 20-frames.
The model, however, requires further improvement
because only three classes were identified despite the
high performance. We plan to continue our study with
further observations to be able to identify vigorous PA
intensity.
References
1 Shephard, R.J.: ‘Absolute versus relative intensity of
physical activity in a dose-response context’, Medicine
& Science in Sports & Exercise, 2001, 33, (6)
2 Janssen, I., and LeBlanc, A.G.: ‘Systematic review of
the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in
school-aged children and youth’, International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2010, 7,
(1), pp. 40
3 Jette, M., Sidney, K., and Blümchen, G.: ‘Metabolic
equivalents (METS) in exercise testing, exercise
prescription, and evaluation of functional capacity’,
Clinical cardiology, 1990, 13, (8), pp. 555-565
4 de Almeida Mendes, M., da Silva, I., Ramires, V.,
Reichert, F., Martins, R., Ferreira, R., and Tomasi, E.:
‘Metabolic equivalent of task (METs) thresholds as an
indicator of physical activity intensity’, PloS one, 2018,
13, (7), pp. e0200701
5 Esliger, D.W., Rowlands, A.V., Hurst, T.L., Catt, M.,
Murray, P., and Eston, R.G.: ‘Validation of the GENEA
Accelerometer’, Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 2011, 43, (6), pp. 1085-1093
6 Cooper, K., Sani, S., Corrigan, L., MacDonald, H.,
Prentice, C., Vareta, R., Massie, S., and Wiratunga, N.:
 The 16th International Confernce on Automation Technology (Automation 2019),
November 22-24, 2019, Taipei, Taiwan
‘Accuracy of physical activity recognition from a wrist-
worn sensor’, Physiotherapy, 2017, 103, pp. e47
7 Mannini, A., Intille, S.S., Rosenberger, M., Sabatini,
A.M., and Haskell, W.: ‘Activity Recognition Using a
Single Accelerometer Placed at the Wrist or Ankle’,
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2013, 45,
(11), pp. 2193-2203
8 Schneller, M.B., Bentsen, P., Nielsen, G., Brond, J.C.,
Ried-Larsen, M., Mygind, E., and Schipperijn, J.:
‘Measuring Children's Physical Activity: Compliance
Using Skin-Taped Accelerometers’, Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 2017, 49, (6), pp. 1261-
1269
9 Lv, M., Xu, W., and Chen, T.: ‘A hybrid deep
convolutional and recurrent neural network for complex
activity recognition using multimodal sensors’,
Neurocomputing, 2019, 362, pp. 33-40
10 Wang, J., Chen, Y., Hao, S., Peng, X., and Hu, L.: ‘Deep
learning for sensor-based activity recognition: A
survey’, Pattern Recognition Letters, 2019, 119, pp. 3-
11
11 Ordonez, F.J., and Roggen, D.: ‘Deep Convolutional
and LSTM Recurrent Neural Networks for Multimodal
Wearable Activity Recognition’, Sensors (Basel), 2016,
16, (1)
12 Vaha-Ypya, H., Vasankari, T., Husu, P., Suni, J., and
Sievanen, H.: ‘A universal, accurate intensity-based
classification of different physical activities using raw
data of accelerometer’, Clinical Physiology and
Functional Imaging, 2015, 35, (1), pp. 64-70
13 Crouter, S.E., Flynn, J.I., and Bassett Jr, D.R.:
‘Estimating physical activity in youth using a wrist
accelerometer’, Medicine and science in sports and
exercise, 2015, 47, (5), pp. 944
14 Trost, S.G., Loprinzi, P.D., Moore, R., and Pfeiffer,
K.A.: ‘Comparison of accelerometer cut points for
predicting activity intensity in youth’, Medicine and
science in sports and exercise, 2011, 43, (7), pp. 1360-
1368
15 Van Loo, C.M., Okely, A.D., Batterham, M.J., Hinkley,
T., Ekelund, U., Brage, S., Reilly, J.J., Trost, S.G.,
Jones, R.A., and Janssen, X.: ‘Wrist accelerometer cut-
points for classifying sedentary behavior in children’,
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2017, 49,
(4), pp. 813
16 Welch, W.A., Bassett, D.R., Thompson, D.L., Freedson,
P.S., Staudenmayer, J.W., John, D., Steeves, J.A.,
Conger, S.A., Ceaser, T., Howe, C.A., Sasaki, J.E., and
Fitzhugh, E.C.: ‘Classification Accuracy of the Wrist-
Worn Gravity Estimator of Normal Everyday Activity
Accelerometer’, Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 2013, 45, (10), pp. 2012-2019
17 van Hees, V.T., Golubic, R., Ekelund, U., and Brage, S.:
‘Impact of study design on development and evaluation
of an activity-type classifier’, Journal of Applied
Physiology, 2013, 114, (8), pp. 1042-1051
18 Sasaki, J.E., Hickey, A.M., Staudenmayer, J.W., John,
D., Kent, J.A., and Freedson, P.S.: ‘Performance of
Activity Classification Algorithms in Free-Living Older
Adults’, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
2016, 48, (5), pp. 941-950
19 Bonomi, A.G., Plasqui, G., Goris, A.H.C., and
Westerterp, K.R.: ‘Improving assessment of daily
energy expenditure by identifying types of physical
View publication stats
activity with a single accelerometer’, Journal of Applied
Physiology, 2009, 107, (3), pp. 655-661
20 Ellis, K., Kerr, J., Godbole, S., Lanckriet, G., Wing, D.,
and Marshall, S.: ‘A random forest classifier for the
prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical
activity from wrist and hip accelerometers’,
Physiological Measurement, 2014, 35, (11), pp. 2191-
2203
21 Khan, A.M.: ‘Recognizing physical activities using the
axivity device’, in Editor (Ed.)^(Eds.): ‘Book
Recognizing physical activities using the axivity device’
(2013, edn.), pp.
22 Kongsvold, A.M.: ‘Validation of the AX3
accelerometer for detection of common daily activities
and postures’, NTNU, 2016
23 Payey, T.G., Gilson, N.D., Gomersall, S.R., Clark, B.,
and Trost, S.G.: ‘Field evaluation of a random forest
activity classifier for wrist-worn accelerometer data’,
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2017, 20, (1),
pp. 75-80
24 Radu, V., Tong, C., Bhattacharya, S., Lane, N.D.,
Mascolo, C., Marina, M.K., and Kawsar, F.:
‘Multimodal Deep Learning for Activity and Context
Recognition’, Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive,
Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2018,
1, (4), pp. 1-27
25 Hammerla, N.Y., Halloran, S., and Plötz, T.: ‘Deep,
convolutional, and recurrent models for human activity
recognition using wearables’, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1604.08880, 2016
26 Vepakomma, P., De, D., Das, S.K., and Bhansali, S.:
‘A-Wristocracy: Deep learning on wrist-worn sensing
for recognition of user complex activities’, in Editor
(Ed.)^(Eds.): ‘Book A-Wristocracy: Deep learning on
wrist-worn sensing for recognition of user complex
activities’ (2015, edn.), pp. 1-6
27 Chen, Y., and Xue, Y.: ‘A Deep Learning Approach to
Human Activity Recognition Based on Single
Accelerometer’, in Editor (Ed.)^(Eds.): ‘Book A Deep
Learning Approach to Human Activity Recognition
Based on Single Accelerometer’ (2015, edn.), pp. 1488-
1492
28 Zeng, M., Nguyen, L.T., Yu, B., Mengshoel, O.J., Zhu,
J., Wu, P., and Zhang, J.: ‘Convolutional Neural
Networks for human activity recognition using mobile
sensors’, in Editor (Ed.)^(Eds.): ‘Book Convolutional
Neural Networks for human activity recognition using
mobile sensors’ (2014, edn.), pp. 197-205
29 Staudenmayer, J., Pober, D., Crouter, S., Bassett, D.,
and Freedson, P.: ‘An artificial neural network to
estimate physical activity energy expenditure and
identify physical activity type from an accelerometer’,
Journal of Applied Physiology, 2009, 107, (4), pp.
1300-1307
30 Noor, M.H.M., Salcic, Z., and Wang, K.I.K.: ‘Adaptive
sliding window segmentation for physical activity
recognition using a single tri-axial accelerometer’,
Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 2017, 38, pp. 41-59