Smartphones, smartwatches, fitness trackers, and ad-hoc wearable devices are being increasingly used to monitor human activities. Data acquired by the hosted sensors are usually processed by machine-learning-based algorithms to classify human activities. The success of those algorithms mostly depends on the availability of training (labeled) data that, if made publicly available, would allow researchers to make objective comparisons between techniques. Nowadays, there are only a few publicly available data sets, which often contain samples from subjects with too similar characteristics, and very often lack specific information so that is not possible to select subsets of samples according to specific criteria. In this article, we present a new dataset of acceleration samples acquired with an Android smartphone designed for human activity recognition and fall detection. The dataset includes 11,771 samples of both human activities and falls performed by 30 subjects of ages ranging from 18 to 60 years. Samples are divided in 17 fine grained classes grouped in two coarse grained classes: one containing samples of 9 types of activities of daily living (ADL) and the other containing samples of 8 types of falls. The dataset has been stored to include all the information useful to select samples according to different criteria, such as the type of ADL performed, the age, the gender, and so on. Finally, the dataset has been benchmarked with four different classifiers and with two different feature vectors. We evaluated four different classification tasks: fall vs. no fall, 9 activities, 8 falls, 17 activities and falls. For each classification task, we performed a 5-fold cross-validation (i.e., including samples from all the subjects in both the training and the test dataset) and a leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (i.e., the test data include the samples of a subject only, and the training data, the samples of all the other subjects). Regarding the classification tasks, the major findings can be summarized as follows: (i) it is quite easy to distinguish between falls and ADLs, regardless of the classifier and the feature vector selected. Indeed, these classes of activities present quite different acceleration shapes that simplify the recognition task; (ii) on average, it is more difficult to distinguish between types of falls than between types of activities, regardless of the classifier and the feature vector selected. This is due to the similarity between the acceleration shapes of different kinds of falls. On the contrary, ADLs acceleration shapes present differences except for a small group. Finally, the evaluation shows that the presence of samples of the same subject both in the training and in the test datasets, increases the performance of the classifiers regardless of the feature vector used. This happens because each human subject differs from other subjects in performing activities even if she shares with them the same physical characteristics.

Recently, a significant amount of literature concerning machine learning techniques has focused on automatic recognition of activities performed by people. The main reason for this considerable interest is the increasing availability of devices able to acquire signals which, if properly processed, can provide information about human activities of daily living (ADL). The recognition of human activities is generally performed by machine learning techniques that process signals from wearable sensors and/or cameras appropriately arranged in the environment. Whatever the type of sensor, activities performed by human beings have a strong subjective characteristic that is related to different factors, such as age, gender, weight, height, physical abilities, and lifestyle. Personalization models have been studied to take into account these subjective factors and it has been demonstrated that using these models, the accuracy of machine learning algorithms can be improved. In this work we focus on the recognition of human activities using signals acquired by the accelerometer embedded in a smartphone. The contributions of this research are mainly three. A first contribution is the definition of a clear validation model that takes into account the problem of personalization and which thus makes it possible to objectively evaluate the performances of machine learning algorithms. A second contribution is the evaluation, on three different public datasets, of a personalization model which considers two aspects: the similarity between people related to physical aspects (age, weight, and height) and similarity related to intrinsic characteristics of the signals produced by these people when performing activities. A third and last contribution is the development of a personalization model that considers both the physical and signal similarities. The experiments show that the employment of personalization models improves, on average, the accuracy, thus confirming the soundness of the approach and paving the way for future investigations on this topic.

Recognizing human activities and monitoring population behavior are fundamental needs of our society. Population security, crowd surveillance, healthcare support and living assistance, and lifestyle and behavior tracking are some of the main applications that require the recognition of human activities. Over the past few decades, researchers have investigated techniques that can automatically recognize human activities. This line of research is commonly known as Human Activity Recognition (HAR). HAR involves many tasks: from signals acquisition to activity classification. The tasks involved are not simple and often require dedicated hardware, sophisticated engineering, and computational and statistical techniques for data preprocessing and analysis. Over the years, different techniques have been tested and different solutions have been proposed to achieve a classification process that provides reliable results. This survey presents the most recent solutions proposed for each task in the human activity classification process, that is, acquisition, preprocessing, data segmentation, feature extraction, and classification. Solutions are analyzed by emphasizing their strengths and weaknesses. For completeness, the survey also presents the metrics commonly used to evaluate the goodness of a classifier and the datasets of inertial signals from smartphones that are mostly used in the evaluation phase.

Human activity recognition (HAR) is a line of research whose goal is to design and develop automatic techniques for recognizing activities of daily living (ADLs) using signals from sensors. HAR is an active research filed in response to the ever-increasing need to collect information remotely related to ADLs for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Traditionally, HAR used environmental or wearable sensors to acquire signals and relied on traditional machine-learning techniques to classify ADLs. In recent years, HAR is moving towards the use of both wearable devices (such as smartphones or fitness trackers, since they are daily used by people and they include reliable inertial sensors), and deep learning techniques (given the encouraging results obtained in the area of computer vision). One of the major challenges related to HAR is population diversity, which makes difficult traditional machine-learning algorithms to generalize. Recently, researchers successfully attempted to address the problem by proposing techniques based on personalization combined with traditional machine learning. To date, no effort has been directed at investigating the benefits that personalization can bring in deep learning techniques in the HAR domain. The goal of our research is to verify if personalization applied to both traditional and deep learning techniques can lead to better performance than classical approaches (i.e., without personalization). The experiments were conducted on three datasets that are extensively used in the literature and that contain metadata related to the subjects. AdaBoost is the technique chosen for traditional machine learning, while convolutional neural network is the one chosen for deep learning. These techniques have shown to offer good performance. Personalization considers both the physical characteristics of the subjects and the inertial signals generated by the subjects. Results suggest that personalization is most effective when applied to traditional machine-learning techniques rather than to deep learning ones. Moreover, results show that deep learning without personalization performs better than any other methods experimented in the paper in those cases where the number of training samples is high and samples are heterogeneous (i.e., they represent a wider spectrum of the population). This suggests that traditional deep learning can be more effective, provided you have a large and heterogeneous dataset, intrinsically modeling the population diversity in the training process.

Smartphones, smartwatches, fitness trackers, and ad-hoc wearable devices are being increasingly used to monitor human activities. Data acquired by the hosted sensors are usually processed by machine-learning-based algorithms to classify human activities. The success of those algorithms mostly depends on the availability of training (labeled) data that, if made publicly available, would allow researchers to make objective comparisons between techniques. Nowadays, publicly available data sets are few, often contain samples from subjects with too similar characteristics, and very often lack of specific information so that is not possible to select subsets of samples according to specific criteria. In this article, we present a new smartphone accelerometer dataset designed for activity recognition. The dataset includes 11,771 activities performed by 30 subjects of ages ranging from 18 to 60 years. Activities are divided in 17 fine grained classes grouped in two coarse grained classes: 9 types of activities of daily living (ADL) and 8 types of falls. The dataset has been stored to include all the information useful to select samples according to different criteria, such as the type of ADL performed, the age, the gender, and so on. Finally, the dataset has been benchmarked with two different classifiers and with different configurations. The best results are achieved with k-NN classifying ADLs only, considering personalization, and with both windows of 51 and 151 samples.