2016 8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/icmic.2016.7804195
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fall detection using supervised machine learning algorithms: A comparative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, we will discuss the results obtained for each dataset: URFD (i) Harrou et al [24] and [23] used both URFD and FDD but do not specify which dataset was used to obtain their results or how they combined the performance on both datasets. For these reasons, these works are not included in the comparison tables.…”
Section: Results and Comparison With The State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, we will discuss the results obtained for each dataset: URFD (i) Harrou et al [24] and [23] used both URFD and FDD but do not specify which dataset was used to obtain their results or how they combined the performance on both datasets. For these reasons, these works are not included in the comparison tables.…”
Section: Results and Comparison With The State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is the case, for example, of Charfi et al [17], who extracted 14 features, applied some transformations to them (the first and second derivatives, the Fourier transform, and the Wavelet transform), and used a SVM to do the classification step. [23] computed occupancy areas around the body's gravity center, extracted their angles, and fed them into various classifiers, being the SVM the one which obtained the best results. In 2017, the same author extended his previous work by adding Curvelet coefficients as extra features and applying a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) to model the different body poses [14].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the perspective of feature extraction, existing solutions can be divided into two categories: static features and dynamic features. Static feature analysis is essentially a morphological model of fall behavior [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Typical examples are the shape matching cost defined by the full Procrustes distance [14] and the application of an approximate ellipse [19] to describe the shape of human body.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The human contour is simplified as three basic parts of the head, body and legs, and at the same time, the orientation, sum of the heights and height ratio are calculated and used to analyze the shape of the human [17,21]. Then, a statistically determined method is used to collect a set of ratios of the human body part occupied area of each frame and the writer uses it as input data of the MEWMA chart [18][19][20]22,23]. In the above methods, their performance must depend on the extraction integrity of the contour of the human body.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These features are invariant to translation and scaling and take into account the rotation information needed for human activity classification [32]. The extracted features are descriptive enough to represent human postures and not too computationally complex permitting a fast treatment.…”
Section: Feature Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%