Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication 2012
DOI: 10.1145/2184751.2184890
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semi-supervised fall detection algorithm using fall indicators in smartphone

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the most common examples about prevention is accident detection (e.g. falls) that has been addressed using sensors and algorithms [9]. Furthermore, self-monitoring of health parameters, as part of primary prevention, has been tightly coupled with health promotion and challenges related to lifestyle and behavior changes [20].…”
Section: Preventive Self-monitoring Technologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most common examples about prevention is accident detection (e.g. falls) that has been addressed using sensors and algorithms [9]. Furthermore, self-monitoring of health parameters, as part of primary prevention, has been tightly coupled with health promotion and challenges related to lifestyle and behavior changes [20].…”
Section: Preventive Self-monitoring Technologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zhao et al [26] implemented three machine-learning algorithms-namely C4.5 DTC, NB, and SVM and compared their performances based on recognition accuracy. Fahmi et al [27] designed a semisupervised algorithm to detect a genuine fall event with smartphone. He and Li [28] employed a combined algorithm of Fisher's discriminant ratio (FDR) criterion and J3 criterion for feature selection and hierarchical classifiers to recognize 15 activities including fall events.…”
Section: Smartphone-based Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The outcomes are often represented by four possible situations [24,30]: TP, a fall occurred and was correctly detected; FP, the system declared a fall that did not occur; true negative (TN), a fall-like event was not misclassified as a fall event; false negative (FN), a fall occurred, but the system missed it. The reliability of systems is usually evaluated based on the following parameters: sensitivity (SE) = TP/(TP+FN), which is the ratio of fallers correctly classified as fall event [27,[31][32][33][34]; specificity (SP) = TN/(TP+FN), which is the ratio of fall-like events correctly classified as nonfallers [35][36][37][38]; accuracy = (TP+TN)/(TP+FP+FN+TN), which is the ratio of true results in the whole data set [26,28,29,39]. Some works measured the performance in a different way; they utilized precision = (∩)/and recall-namely, the number of correct results divided by the total outputs-as the performance indexes [40][41][42].…”
Section: Performance Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve this goal we can use learning techniques like the semi-supervised algorithm used by Ali Fahmi et al in [19]. Each user moves differently, for this reason, the system should have adjusted the classification parameters to the particular movements of the user.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%