Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2015
DOI: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2014.0551
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognition of humans based on radar micro‐Doppler shape spectrum features

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
48
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
2
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another noticeable trend is the fact that the classification accuracy increases with increasing spectrogram window when the overlap is high (95% to 50% for the discriminant analysis classifier and 95% to 75% for Naïve Bayes classifier), but the accuracy decreases with increasing spectrogram length when low overlap is used. These results appear to be in line with those in [9], where the authors report that they required overlap of at least over 40% to achieve good classification The best result overall appears to be the use of 0.7 s window with 95% overlap and binary voting approach, but only a slight reduction of performance of less than 2% is reported when using lower overlap at around 75% and 50%. An example of unarmed vs armed spectrograms calculated with 0.7 s window and 50%…”
Section: Single Target Datasupporting
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Another noticeable trend is the fact that the classification accuracy increases with increasing spectrogram window when the overlap is high (95% to 50% for the discriminant analysis classifier and 95% to 75% for Naïve Bayes classifier), but the accuracy decreases with increasing spectrogram length when low overlap is used. These results appear to be in line with those in [9], where the authors report that they required overlap of at least over 40% to achieve good classification The best result overall appears to be the use of 0.7 s window with 95% overlap and binary voting approach, but only a slight reduction of performance of less than 2% is reported when using lower overlap at around 75% and 50%. An example of unarmed vs armed spectrograms calculated with 0.7 s window and 50%…”
Section: Single Target Datasupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The recorded data were processed through STFT to characterize the micro-Doppler signature in the armed vs unarmed case through features that can be extracted from the spectrograms, as in [6][7][8][9]. The STFTs were initially calculated using 0.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Following the same approach used to classify human microDoppler signatures, feature samples have been extracted from the spectrograms [7][8] and used as input to a classifier. Two features based on the Doppler and bandwidth centroid of the micro-Doppler signatures have been identified as suitable for the loaded/unloaded classification [9].…”
Section: Fig 2 Micro-doppler Signatures For the Drone Hovering: (A) mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been shown how features extracted from the Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT) of these signatures can be used to classify human targets from animals and vehicles in a ground surveillance radar context [6,7], to discriminate between different activities performed by people such as walking, running, crawling [8][9][10][11][12][13], and even to identify specific individuals performing the same activity by exploiting the characteristic walking gait and small movement patterns that each individual exhibits [14][15][16]. Time-frequency transforms [4] other than STFTs have been also proposed to characterise micro-Doppler signatures, such as the Gabor transform, Wigner-Ville transform, Cohen's class timefrequency distributions [17] or Empirical Mode Decomposition [18,19], all of which have been shown to be effective in representing minute movements [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%