With the advent of miniaturized sensing technology, which can be body-worn, it is now possible to collect and store data on different aspects of human movement under the conditions of free living. This technology has the potential to be used in automated activity profiling systems which produce a continuous record of activity patterns over extended periods of time. Such activity profiling systems are dependent on classification algorithms which can effectively interpret body-worn sensor data and identify different activities. This article reviews the different techniques which have been used to classify normal activities and/or identify falls from body-worn sensor data. The review is structured according to the different analytical techniques and illustrates the variety of approaches which have previously been applied in this field. Although significant progress has been made in this important area, there is still significant scope for further work, particularly in the application of advanced classification techniques to problems involving many different activities.
31 October 2008 in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Driven by the demands on healthcare resulting from the shift toward more sedentary lifestyles, considerable effort has been devoted to the monitoring and classification of human activity. In previous studies, various classification schemes and feature extraction methods have been used to identify different activities from a range of different datasets. In this paper, we present a comparison of 14 methods to extract classification features from accelerometer signals. These are based on the wavelet transform and other well-known time- and frequency-domain signal characteristics. To allow an objective comparison between the different features, we used two datasets of activities collected from 20 subjects. The first set comprised three commonly used activities, namely, level walking, stair ascent, and stair descent, and the second a total of eight activities. Furthermore, we compared the classification accuracy for each feature set across different combinations of three different accelerometer placements. The classification analysis has been performed with robust subject-based cross-validation methods using a nearest-neighbor classifier. The findings show that, although the wavelet transform approach can be used to characterize nonstationary signals, it does not perform as accurately as frequency-based features when classifying dynamic activities performed by healthy subjects. Overall, the best feature sets achieved over 95% intersubject classification accuracy.
Users of myoelectric prostheses can often find them difficult to control. This can lead to passive-use of the device or total rejection, which can have detrimental effects on the contralateral limb due to overuse. Current clinically available prostheses are ‘open loop’ systems, and although considerable effort has been focused on developing biofeedback to “close the loop”, there is evidence from laboratory-based studies that other factors, notably improving predictability of response, may be as, if not more, important. Interestingly, despite a large volume of research aimed at improving myoelectric prostheses, it is not currently known which aspect of clinically available systems has the greatest impact on overall functionality and everyday usage. A protocol has therefore been designed to assess EMG skill of the user and predictability of the prosthesis response as significant parts of the control chain, and to relate these to functionality and everyday usage. Here we present the protocol and results from early pilot work. A set of experiments has been developed. Firstly to characterize user skill in generating the required level of EMG signal, as well as the speed with which users are able to make the decision to activate the appropriate muscles. Secondly, to measure unpredictability introduced at the skin-electrode interface, in order to understand the effects of the socket mounted electrode fit under different loads on the variability of time taken for the prosthetic hand to respond. To evaluate prosthesis user functionality, four different outcome measures are assessed. Using a simple upper limb functional task prosthesis users are assessed for (1) success of task completion, (2) task duration, (3) quality of movement, and (4) gaze behavior. To evaluate everyday usage away from the clinic, the symmetricity of their real-world arm use is assessed using activity monitoring. These methods will later be used to assess a prosthesis user cohort, to establish the relative contribution of each control factor to the individual measures of functionality and everyday usage (using multiple regression models). The results will support future researchers, designers and clinicians in concentrating their efforts on the area which will have the greatest impact on improving prosthesis use.