↓ Skip to main content

Identifying typical physical activity on smartphone with varying positions and orientations

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying typical physical activity on smartphone with varying positions and orientations
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12938-015-0026-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fen Miao, Yi He, Jinlei Liu, Ye Li, Idowu Ayoola

Abstract

Traditional activity recognition solutions are not widely applicable due to a high cost and inconvenience to use with numerous sensors. This paper aims to automatically recognize physical activity with the help of the built-in sensors of the widespread smartphone without any limitation of firm attachment to the human body. By introducing a method to judge whether the phone is in a pocket, we investigated the data collected from six positions of seven subjects, chose five signals that are insensitive to orientation for activity classification. Decision trees (J48), Naive Bayes and Sequential minimal optimization (SMO) were employed to recognize five activities: static, walking, running, walking upstairs and walking downstairs. The experimental results based on 8,097 activity data demonstrated that the J48 classifier produced the best performance with an average recognition accuracy of 89.6% during the three classifiers, and thus would serve as the optimal online classifier. The utilization of the built-in sensors of the smartphone to recognize typical physical activities without any limitation of firm attachment is feasible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 109 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 20 18%
Computer Science 19 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2016.
All research outputs
#18,171,876
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#541
of 833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,254
of 265,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 833 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.