Home Artificial Intelligence Classifying bodily exercise from smartphone knowledge

Classifying bodily exercise from smartphone knowledge

0
Classifying bodily exercise from smartphone knowledge

[ad_1]

Introduction

On this submit we’ll describe easy methods to use smartphone accelerometer and gyroscope knowledge to foretell the bodily actions of the people carrying the telephones. The info used on this submit comes from the Smartphone-Primarily based Recognition of Human Actions and Postural Transitions Information Set distributed by the College of California, Irvine. Thirty people had been tasked with performing varied primary actions with an connected smartphone recording motion utilizing an accelerometer and gyroscope.

Earlier than we start, let’s load the assorted libraries that we’ll use within the evaluation:


library(keras)     # Neural Networks
library(tidyverse) # Information cleansing / Visualization
library(knitr)     # Desk printing
library(rmarkdown) # Misc. output utilities 
library(ggridges)  # Visualization

Actions dataset

The info used on this submit come from the Smartphone-Primarily based Recognition of Human Actions and Postural Transitions Information Set(Reyes-Ortiz et al. 2016) distributed by the College of California, Irvine.

When downloaded from the hyperlink above, the information incorporates two totally different ‘components.’ One which has been pre-processed utilizing varied characteristic extraction methods akin to fast-fourier remodel, and one other RawData part that merely provides the uncooked X,Y,Z instructions of an accelerometer and gyroscope. None of the usual noise filtering or characteristic extraction utilized in accelerometer knowledge has been utilized. That is the information set we’ll use.

The motivation for working with the uncooked knowledge on this submit is to help the transition of the code/ideas to time sequence knowledge in much less well-characterized domains. Whereas a extra correct mannequin may very well be made by using the filtered/cleaned knowledge supplied, the filtering and transformation can range vastly from activity to activity; requiring plenty of guide effort and area data. One of many stunning issues about deep studying is the characteristic extraction is discovered from the information, not outdoors data.

Exercise labels

The info has integer encodings for the actions which, whereas not necessary to the mannequin itself, are useful to be used to see. Let’s load them first.


activityLabels <- learn.desk("knowledge/activity_labels.txt", 
                             col.names = c("quantity", "label")) 

activityLabels %>% kable(align = c("c", "l"))
1 WALKING
2 WALKING_UPSTAIRS
3 WALKING_DOWNSTAIRS
4 SITTING
5 STANDING
6 LAYING
7 STAND_TO_SIT
8 SIT_TO_STAND
9 SIT_TO_LIE
10 LIE_TO_SIT
11 STAND_TO_LIE
12 LIE_TO_STAND

Subsequent, we load within the labels key for the RawData. This file is an inventory of all the observations, or particular person exercise recordings, contained within the knowledge set. The important thing for the columns is taken from the information README.txt.


Column 1: experiment quantity ID, 
Column 2: consumer quantity ID, 
Column 3: exercise quantity ID 
Column 4: Label begin level 
Column 5: Label finish level 

The beginning and finish factors are in variety of sign log samples (recorded at 50hz).

Let’s check out the primary 50 rows:


labels <- learn.desk(
  "knowledge/RawData/labels.txt",
  col.names = c("experiment", "userId", "exercise", "startPos", "endPos")
)

labels %>% 
  head(50) %>% 
  paged_table()

File names

Subsequent, let’s have a look at the precise information of the consumer knowledge supplied to us in RawData/


dataFiles <- listing.information("knowledge/RawData")
dataFiles %>% head()

[1] "acc_exp01_user01.txt" "acc_exp02_user01.txt"
[3] "acc_exp03_user02.txt" "acc_exp04_user02.txt"
[5] "acc_exp05_user03.txt" "acc_exp06_user03.txt"

There’s a three-part file naming scheme. The primary half is the kind of knowledge the file incorporates: both acc for accelerometer or gyro for gyroscope. Subsequent is the experiment quantity, and final is the consumer Id for the recording. Let’s load these right into a dataframe for ease of use later.


fileInfo <- data_frame(
  filePath = dataFiles
) %>%
  filter(filePath != "labels.txt") %>% 
  separate(filePath, sep = '_', 
           into = c("kind", "experiment", "userId"), 
           take away = FALSE) %>% 
  mutate(
    experiment = str_remove(experiment, "exp"),
    userId = str_remove_all(userId, "consumer|.txt")
  ) %>% 
  unfold(kind, filePath)

fileInfo %>% head() %>% kable()
01 01 acc_exp01_user01.txt gyro_exp01_user01.txt
02 01 acc_exp02_user01.txt gyro_exp02_user01.txt
03 02 acc_exp03_user02.txt gyro_exp03_user02.txt
04 02 acc_exp04_user02.txt gyro_exp04_user02.txt
05 03 acc_exp05_user03.txt gyro_exp05_user03.txt
06 03 acc_exp06_user03.txt gyro_exp06_user03.txt

Studying and gathering knowledge

Earlier than we are able to do something with the information supplied we have to get it right into a model-friendly format. This implies we need to have an inventory of observations, their class (or exercise label), and the information comparable to the recording.

To acquire this we’ll scan by way of every of the recording information current in dataFiles, search for what observations are contained within the recording, extract these recordings and return the whole lot to a straightforward to mannequin with dataframe.


# Learn contents of single file to a dataframe with accelerometer and gyro knowledge.
readInData <- operate(experiment, userId){
  genFilePath = operate(kind) {
    paste0("knowledge/RawData/", kind, "_exp",experiment, "_user", userId, ".txt")
  }  
  
  bind_cols(
    learn.desk(genFilePath("acc"), col.names = c("a_x", "a_y", "a_z")),
    learn.desk(genFilePath("gyro"), col.names = c("g_x", "g_y", "g_z"))
  )
}

# Perform to learn a given file and get the observations contained alongside
# with their courses.

loadFileData <- operate(curExperiment, curUserId) {
  
  # load sensor knowledge from file into dataframe
  allData <- readInData(curExperiment, curUserId)

  extractObservation <- operate(startPos, endPos){
    allData[startPos:endPos,]
  }
  
  # get statement places on this file from labels dataframe
  dataLabels <- labels %>% 
    filter(userId == as.integer(curUserId), 
           experiment == as.integer(curExperiment))
  

  # extract observations as dataframes and save as a column in dataframe.
  dataLabels %>% 
    mutate(
      knowledge = map2(startPos, endPos, extractObservation)
    ) %>% 
    choose(-startPos, -endPos)
}

# scan by way of all experiment and userId combos and collect knowledge right into a dataframe. 
allObservations <- map2_df(fileInfo$experiment, fileInfo$userId, loadFileData) %>% 
  right_join(activityLabels, by = c("exercise" = "quantity")) %>% 
  rename(activityName = label)

# cache work. 
write_rds(allObservations, "allObservations.rds")
allObservations %>% dim()

Exploring the information

Now that we have now all the information loaded together with the experiment, userId, and exercise labels, we are able to discover the information set.

Size of recordings

Let’s first have a look at the size of the recordings by exercise.


allObservations %>% 
  mutate(recording_length = map_int(knowledge,nrow)) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = recording_length, y = activityName)) +
  geom_density_ridges(alpha = 0.8)

The actual fact there’s such a distinction in size of recording between the totally different exercise varieties requires us to be a bit cautious with how we proceed. If we prepare the mannequin on each class directly we’re going to should pad all of the observations to the size of the longest, which would depart a big majority of the observations with an enormous proportion of their knowledge being simply padding-zeros. Due to this, we’ll match our mannequin to simply the biggest ‘group’ of observations size actions, these embody STAND_TO_SIT, STAND_TO_LIE, SIT_TO_STAND, SIT_TO_LIE, LIE_TO_STAND, and LIE_TO_SIT.

An attention-grabbing future route could be making an attempt to make use of one other structure akin to an RNN that may deal with variable size inputs and coaching it on all the information. Nonetheless, you’d run the chance of the mannequin studying merely that if the statement is lengthy it’s probably one of many 4 longest courses which might not generalize to a state of affairs the place you had been working this mannequin on a real-time-stream of knowledge.

Filtering actions

Primarily based on our work from above, let’s subset the information to simply be of the actions of curiosity.


desiredActivities <- c(
  "STAND_TO_SIT", "SIT_TO_STAND", "SIT_TO_LIE", 
  "LIE_TO_SIT", "STAND_TO_LIE", "LIE_TO_STAND"  
)

filteredObservations <- allObservations %>% 
  filter(activityName %in% desiredActivities) %>% 
  mutate(observationId = 1:n())

filteredObservations %>% paged_table()

So after our aggressive pruning of the information we can have a decent quantity of knowledge left upon which our mannequin can be taught.

Coaching/testing cut up

Earlier than we go any additional into exploring the information for our mannequin, in an try to be as truthful as doable with our efficiency measures, we have to cut up the information right into a prepare and check set. Since every consumer carried out all actions simply as soon as (excluding one who solely did 10 of the 12 actions) by splitting on userId we’ll be certain that our mannequin sees new folks completely once we check it.


# get all customers
userIds <- allObservations$userId %>% distinctive()

# randomly select 24 (80% of 30 people) for coaching
set.seed(42) # seed for reproducibility
trainIds <- pattern(userIds, dimension = 24)

# set the remainder of the customers to the testing set
testIds <- setdiff(userIds,trainIds)

# filter knowledge. 
trainData <- filteredObservations %>% 
  filter(userId %in% trainIds)

testData <- filteredObservations %>% 
  filter(userId %in% testIds)

Visualizing actions

Now that we have now trimmed our knowledge by eradicating actions and splitting off a check set, we are able to really visualize the information for every class to see if there’s any instantly discernible form that our mannequin might be able to choose up on.

First let’s unpack our knowledge from its dataframe of one-row-per-observation to a tidy model of all of the observations.


unpackedObs <- 1:nrow(trainData) %>% 
  map_df(operate(rowNum){
    dataRow <- trainData[rowNum, ]
    dataRow$knowledge[[1]] %>% 
      mutate(
        activityName = dataRow$activityName, 
        observationId = dataRow$observationId,
        time = 1:n() )
  }) %>% 
  collect(studying, worth, -time, -activityName, -observationId) %>% 
  separate(studying, into = c("kind", "route"), sep = "_") %>% 
  mutate(kind = ifelse(kind == "a", "acceleration", "gyro"))

Now we have now an unpacked set of our observations, let’s visualize them!


unpackedObs %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = time, y = worth, colour = route)) +
  geom_line(alpha = 0.2) +
  geom_smooth(se = FALSE, alpha = 0.7, dimension = 0.5) +
  facet_grid(kind ~ activityName, scales = "free_y") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme( axis.textual content.x = element_blank() )

So a minimum of within the accelerometer knowledge patterns undoubtedly emerge. One would think about that the mannequin could have hassle with the variations between LIE_TO_SIT and LIE_TO_STAND as they’ve an identical profile on common. The identical goes for SIT_TO_STAND and STAND_TO_SIT.

Preprocessing

Earlier than we are able to prepare the neural community, we have to take a few steps to preprocess the information.

Padding observations

First we’ll determine what size to pad (and truncate) our sequences to by discovering what the 98th percentile size is. By not utilizing the very longest statement size it will assist us keep away from extra-long outlier recordings messing up the padding.


padSize <- trainData$knowledge %>% 
  map_int(nrow) %>% 
  quantile(p = 0.98) %>% 
  ceiling()
padSize

98% 
334 

Now we merely must convert our listing of observations to matrices, then use the tremendous helpful pad_sequences() operate in Keras to pad all observations and switch them right into a 3D tensor for us.


convertToTensor <- . %>% 
  map(as.matrix) %>% 
  pad_sequences(maxlen = padSize)

trainObs <- trainData$knowledge %>% convertToTensor()
testObs <- testData$knowledge %>% convertToTensor()
  
dim(trainObs)

[1] 286 334   6

Fantastic, we now have our knowledge in a pleasant neural-network-friendly format of a 3D tensor with dimensions (<num obs>, <sequence size>, <channels>).

One-hot encoding

There’s one very last thing we have to do earlier than we are able to prepare our mannequin, and that’s flip our statement courses from integers into one-hot, or dummy encoded, vectors. Fortunately, once more Keras has equipped us with a really useful operate to just do this.


oneHotClasses <- . %>% 
  {. - 7} %>%        # carry integers all the way down to 0-6 from 7-12
  to_categorical() # One-hot encode

trainY <- trainData$exercise %>% oneHotClasses()
testY <- testData$exercise %>% oneHotClasses()

Modeling

Structure

Since we have now temporally dense time-series knowledge we’ll make use of 1D convolutional layers. With temporally-dense knowledge, an RNN has to be taught very lengthy dependencies so as to choose up on patterns, CNNs can merely stack just a few convolutional layers to construct sample representations of considerable size. Since we’re additionally merely in search of a single classification of exercise for every statement, we are able to simply use pooling to ‘summarize’ the CNNs view of the information right into a dense layer.

Along with stacking two layer_conv_1d() layers, we’ll use batch norm and dropout (the spatial variant(Tompson et al. 2014) on the convolutional layers and customary on the dense) to regularize the community.


input_shape <- dim(trainObs)[-1]
num_classes <- dim(trainY)[2]

filters <- 24     # variety of convolutional filters to be taught
kernel_size <- 8  # what number of time-steps every conv layer sees.
dense_size <- 48  # dimension of our penultimate dense layer. 

# Initialize mannequin
mannequin <- keras_model_sequential()
mannequin %>% 
  layer_conv_1d(
    filters = filters,
    kernel_size = kernel_size, 
    input_shape = input_shape,
    padding = "legitimate", 
    activation = "relu"
  ) %>%
  layer_batch_normalization() %>%
  layer_spatial_dropout_1d(0.15) %>% 
  layer_conv_1d(
    filters = filters/2,
    kernel_size = kernel_size,
    activation = "relu",
  ) %>%
  # Apply common pooling:
  layer_global_average_pooling_1d() %>% 
  layer_batch_normalization() %>%
  layer_dropout(0.2) %>% 
  layer_dense(
    dense_size,
    activation = "relu"
  ) %>% 
  layer_batch_normalization() %>%
  layer_dropout(0.25) %>% 
  layer_dense(
    num_classes, 
    activation = "softmax",
    identify = "dense_output"
  ) 

abstract(mannequin)

______________________________________________________________________
Layer (kind)                   Output Form                Param #    
======================================================================
conv1d_1 (Conv1D)              (None, 327, 24)             1176       
______________________________________________________________________
batch_normalization_1 (BatchNo (None, 327, 24)             96         
______________________________________________________________________
spatial_dropout1d_1 (SpatialDr (None, 327, 24)             0          
______________________________________________________________________
conv1d_2 (Conv1D)              (None, 320, 12)             2316       
______________________________________________________________________
global_average_pooling1d_1 (Gl (None, 12)                  0          
______________________________________________________________________
batch_normalization_2 (BatchNo (None, 12)                  48         
______________________________________________________________________
dropout_1 (Dropout)            (None, 12)                  0          
______________________________________________________________________
dense_1 (Dense)                (None, 48)                  624        
______________________________________________________________________
batch_normalization_3 (BatchNo (None, 48)                  192        
______________________________________________________________________
dropout_2 (Dropout)            (None, 48)                  0          
______________________________________________________________________
dense_output (Dense)           (None, 6)                   294        
======================================================================
Whole params: 4,746
Trainable params: 4,578
Non-trainable params: 168
______________________________________________________________________

Coaching

Now we are able to prepare the mannequin utilizing our check and coaching knowledge. Notice that we use callback_model_checkpoint() to make sure that we save solely the very best variation of the mannequin (fascinating since in some unspecified time in the future in coaching the mannequin could start to overfit or in any other case cease enhancing).


# Compile mannequin
mannequin %>% compile(
  loss = "categorical_crossentropy",
  optimizer = "rmsprop",
  metrics = "accuracy"
)

trainHistory <- mannequin %>%
  match(
    x = trainObs, y = trainY,
    epochs = 350,
    validation_data = listing(testObs, testY),
    callbacks = listing(
      callback_model_checkpoint("best_model.h5", 
                                save_best_only = TRUE)
    )
  )

The mannequin is studying one thing! We get a decent 94.4% accuracy on the validation knowledge, not unhealthy with six doable courses to select from. Let’s look into the validation efficiency just a little deeper to see the place the mannequin is messing up.

Analysis

Now that we have now a skilled mannequin let’s examine the errors that it made on our testing knowledge. We are able to load the very best mannequin from coaching primarily based upon validation accuracy after which have a look at every statement, what the mannequin predicted, how excessive a likelihood it assigned, and the true exercise label.


# dataframe to get labels onto one-hot encoded prediction columns
oneHotToLabel <- activityLabels %>% 
  mutate(quantity = quantity - 7) %>% 
  filter(quantity >= 0) %>% 
  mutate(class = paste0("V",quantity + 1)) %>% 
  choose(-number)

# Load our greatest mannequin checkpoint
bestModel <- load_model_hdf5("best_model.h5")

tidyPredictionProbs <- bestModel %>% 
  predict(testObs) %>% 
  as_data_frame() %>% 
  mutate(obs = 1:n()) %>% 
  collect(class, prob, -obs) %>% 
  right_join(oneHotToLabel, by = "class")

predictionPerformance <- tidyPredictionProbs %>% 
  group_by(obs) %>% 
  summarise(
    highestProb = max(prob),
    predicted = label[prob == highestProb]
  ) %>% 
  mutate(
    fact = testData$activityName,
    right = fact == predicted
  ) 

predictionPerformance %>% paged_table()

First, let’s have a look at how ‘assured’ the mannequin was by if the prediction was right or not.


predictionPerformance %>% 
  mutate(consequence = ifelse(right, 'Right', 'Incorrect')) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(highestProb)) +
  geom_histogram(binwidth = 0.01) +
  geom_rug(alpha = 0.5) +
  facet_grid(consequence~.) +
  ggtitle("Chances related to prediction by correctness")

Reassuringly it appears the mannequin was, on common, much less assured about its classifications for the wrong outcomes than the proper ones. (Though, the pattern dimension is just too small to say something definitively.)

Let’s see what actions the mannequin had the toughest time with utilizing a confusion matrix.


predictionPerformance %>% 
  group_by(fact, predicted) %>% 
  summarise(rely = n()) %>% 
  mutate(good = fact == predicted) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = fact,  y = predicted)) +
  geom_point(aes(dimension = rely, colour = good)) +
  geom_text(aes(label = rely), 
            hjust = 0, vjust = 0, 
            nudge_x = 0.1, nudge_y = 0.1) + 
  guides(colour = FALSE, dimension = FALSE) +
  theme_minimal()

We see that, because the preliminary visualization advised, the mannequin had a little bit of hassle with distinguishing between LIE_TO_SIT and LIE_TO_STAND courses, together with the SIT_TO_LIE and STAND_TO_LIE, which even have related visible profiles.

Future instructions

The obvious future route to take this evaluation could be to try to make the mannequin extra basic by working with extra of the equipped exercise varieties. One other attention-grabbing route could be to not separate the recordings into distinct ‘observations’ however as an alternative hold them as one streaming set of knowledge, very similar to an actual world deployment of a mannequin would work, and see how properly a mannequin may classify streaming knowledge and detect adjustments in exercise.

Gal, Yarin, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2016. “Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Mannequin Uncertainty in Deep Studying.” In Worldwide Convention on Machine Studying, 1050–9.

Graves, Alex. 2012. “Supervised Sequence Labelling.” In Supervised Sequence Labelling with Recurrent Neural Networks, 5–13. Springer.

Kononenko, Igor. 1989. “Bayesian Neural Networks.” Organic Cybernetics 61 (5). Springer: 361–70.

LeCun, Yann, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. “Deep Studying.” Nature 521 (7553). Nature Publishing Group: 436.

Reyes-Ortiz, Jorge-L, Luca Oneto, Albert Samà, Xavier Parra, and Davide Anguita. 2016. “Transition-Conscious Human Exercise Recognition Utilizing Smartphones.” Neurocomputing 171. Elsevier: 754–67.

Tompson, Jonathan, Ross Goroshin, Arjun Jain, Yann LeCun, and Christoph Bregler. 2014. “Environment friendly Object Localization Utilizing Convolutional Networks.” CoRR abs/1411.4280. http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4280.

[ad_2]