2024
DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dual attention-based deep learning for construction equipment activity recognition considering transition activities and imbalanced dataset

Yuying Shen,
Jixin Wang,
Chenlong Feng
et al.
Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite their benefits, vision-based methods encounter significant challenges. These include obstructions by adverse weather conditions (e.g., fog, dust, rain, and snow), unfavorable lighting conditions (e.g., luminous flux, illuminance, beam angle, and color temperature), and occlusions by construction equipment, which can significantly impair activity recognition [20,21]. For example, poor lighting and occlusions have been identified as factors that may lead to inaccurate activity detection and classification [22].…”
Section: Vision-based Methods For Recognizing Equipment Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite their benefits, vision-based methods encounter significant challenges. These include obstructions by adverse weather conditions (e.g., fog, dust, rain, and snow), unfavorable lighting conditions (e.g., luminous flux, illuminance, beam angle, and color temperature), and occlusions by construction equipment, which can significantly impair activity recognition [20,21]. For example, poor lighting and occlusions have been identified as factors that may lead to inaccurate activity detection and classification [22].…”
Section: Vision-based Methods For Recognizing Equipment Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in a study that applied IMU and GPS signals data to the fractional random forest (FRF) technique, the same learning method was applied to actual excavators and a one-twelfth scale model, but the experiment showed a difference in accuracy, with 84.1% for the actual excavator and 72.9% for the model excavator [14]. Thus, the accuracy of subsequent activity recognition in the kinematic method is significantly affected by the sensor's location, tag number, and positioning details of the construction equipment structure [20].…”
Section: Sensor-based Methods For Recognizing Equipment Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%