Proceedings of the Ninth International C* Conference on Computer Science &Amp; Software Engineering - C3S2E '16 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2948992.2949002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Smartphones to Classify Urban Sounds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors of Reference [40] used Random Forests and SVM methods for the recognition of street music, siren, gun shot, idling, drilling, dog bark, children playing, car horn and air conditioner sounds. This study used MFCC and motif features, reporting an accuracy between 26.45% and 55.68% with SVM, and between 70.55% and 85% with Random Forests.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors of Reference [40] used Random Forests and SVM methods for the recognition of street music, siren, gun shot, idling, drilling, dog bark, children playing, car horn and air conditioner sounds. This study used MFCC and motif features, reporting an accuracy between 26.45% and 55.68% with SVM, and between 70.55% and 85% with Random Forests.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors of [38] used Random Forests and SVM methods for the recognition of air conditioner, car horn, children playing, dog bark, drilling, idling, gum shot, jackhammer, siren, and street music sounds, using MFCC and motif features, reporting an accuracy between 26.45% and 55.68% with SVM, and between 70.55% and 85% with Random Forests.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [36], the authors used GMM with MFCC as features for the recognition of calls during driving, reporting an accuracy around 86%. On the other hand, the authors of [37] used GMM with zero crossing rate, RMS, MFCC, and low energy frame rate as features for the recognition of emotional states, reporting an accuracy between 65% and 100%.The authors of [38] used Random Forests and SVM methods for the recognition of air conditioner, car horn, children playing, dog bark, drilling, idling, gum shot, jackhammer, siren, and street music sounds, using MFCC and motif features, reporting an accuracy between 26.45% and 55.68% with SVM, and between 70.55% and 85% with Random Forests.In [39], the authors used the decision tree and HMM methods for the recognition of several ADL and environments, including zero crossing rate, low energy frame rate, spectral flux, spectral roll-off, bandwidth, normalized weighted phase deviation, and Relative Spectral Entropy (RSE), reporting an accuracy higher than 78%.The authors of [40] implemented the GMM, Feed-Forward DNN, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and SVM for the recognition of baby crying and smoking alarm, using MFCC, spectral centroid, spectral flatness, spectral roll-off, spectral kurtosis, and zero crossing rate, reporting accuracies between 2% and 24%.The SVM, diverse density (DD), and expected maximization (EM) methods were implemented in [41] for the recognition of several sounds, including cutlery, water, voice, ambient, and music, using MFCC, spectral flux, spectral centroid, bandwidth, Normalized Mel-Frequency Bands, zero crossing rate, and low energy frame rate as features, reporting an average accuracy of 87%.In [42], several sounds were identified, including coffee machine brewing, hand washing, walking, elevator, door opening/closing, and silence, using k-Nearest Neighbour (k-NN), SVM and GMM methods with some features, such as zero crossing rate, short-time energy, temporal centroid, energy entropy, autocorrelation, RMS, spectral centroid, spectral spread, spectral roll-off point, spectral flux, spectral entropy, and MFCC methods. The highest accuracies achieved with the different methods are 97.9%, with k-NN, 90%, with GMM, and 100%, with SVM [42].The authors of [43] implemented the Random Forest, HMM, GMM, SVM, ANN, k-NN, and deep belief network methods in order to recognize babble, driving, machinery, crowded restaurant, street, air conditioner, washer, dryer, and vacuum cleaner, with MFCC, band periodicity, and band entropy, reporting results with a reliable accuracy.In [44], the authors implemented Naïve Bayes, k-NN, Random Forest, and Bayesian Networks methods for the recognition of several nursing activities, including measurement of height, patient sitting, assisting doctor, attaching/measuring/removing electrocardiography (ECG), changing bandage, cleaning body, examining edema, and washing hands, using several features, including mean of intensity, mean, variance of intensity, variance, mean of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)-domain energy, and covariance between intensities.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%