A Convolutional Neural Network-Based Feature Extraction and Weighted Twin Support Vector Machine Algorithm for Context-Aware Human Activity Recognition

Abstract

Human activity recognition (HAR) is crucial to infer the activities of human beings, and to provide support in various aspects such as monitoring, alerting, and security. Distinct activities may possess similar movements that need to be further distinguished using contextual information. In this paper, we extract features for context-aware HAR using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Instead of a traditional CNN, a combined 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN was designed to enhance the effectiveness of the feature extraction. Regarding the classification model, a weighted twin support vector machine (WTSVM) was used, which had advantages in reducing the computational cost in a high-dimensional environment compared to a traditional support vector machine. A performance evaluation showed that the proposed algorithm achieves an average training accuracy of 98.3% using 5-fold cross-validation. Ablation studies analyzed the contributions of the individual components of the 3D-CNN, the 2D-CNN, the 1D-CNN, the weighted samples of the SVM, and the twin strategy of solving two hyperplanes. The corresponding improvements in the average training accuracy of these five components were 6.27%, 4.13%, 2.40%, 2.29%, and 3.26%, respectively.

1. Introduction

Human activity recognition (HAR) has played an important role in various applications such as sport performance [1], life logging [2], anti-crime security [3], fall detection [4], health monitoring [5], and elderly care [6]. Typically, three types of sensors are utilized to measure the human activities, namely environment-based sensors, object-based sensors, wearable sensors, and video-based sensors [7]. Examples of environment-based sensors are radar, sound, and pressure detectors, as well as thermocouples, and barometers. Examples of object-based sensors are Wi-Fi and RFID. For wearable sensors, examples are the global positioning system, magnetometers, gyroscopes, and accelerometers. The forms of human activities vary from static (e.g., sitting and lying) to dynamic (e.g., walking and running) to transitive postures (transitions between consecutive activities). Since some human activities may share similar characteristics, contextual information is included to support the inferring of actual activities [8]. This is related to the concept of context-awareness, which is the ability to capture information from the external environment. Common contextual information includes the task, process, role, user, time, activity, identity, and location [9]. In this paper, HAR using video-based sensors is not considered in the performance comparison because the data type (as videos/images) is different from other types. Readers could refer to the works [10,11] for more details on HAR using video-based sensors.

Various machine learning algorithms have been proposed for context-aware HAR. Generally, there are five types of algorithms, namely the fuzzy logic-based [12,13], probabilistic-based [14,15], rule-based [16,17], distance-based [18,19], and optimization-based approaches [20,21].

To begin the discussion with fuzzy logic-based algorithms, a fuzzy rule-based inference system using fuzzy logic (FL) was proposed for the HAR of six activities: exercising, laying, sitting down, standing up, walking, and sleeping [12]. An experimental analysis of the system with a one day case study showed an accuracy of 97%. Another fuzzy rule-based inference system was presented for HAR with first person video [13]. The selected activities in the kitchen for the analysis were cleaning, washing dishes, and cooking. Biased classification was observed based on the evaluation metrics of recall (54.7%), precision (58.4%), and accuracy (70%).

Regarding the probabilistic-based algorithms, naive Bayes (NB) was chosen to take in the features of the fundamental DC component of a fast Fourier transform, as well as the value and variances of the magnitude, pitch, and roll for HAR [14]. Five human activities were included: walking, standing up, standing, laying down, and sitting. An accuracy of 89.5% was reported. A hidden Markov model (HMM) [15] was used to analyze 22 activities for HAR. The activities were: two-leg jump, one-leg jump, shuffle-right, shuffle-left, V-cut-right-right-first, V-cut-right-left-first, V-cut-left-left-first, run, spin-right-right-first spin-right-left-first, spin-left-right-first, spin-left-left-first, walk-downstairs, walk-upstairs, walk-curve-right, walk-curve-left, walk, stand-to-sit, sit-to-stand, stand, and sit. Owing to the complexity of the recognition of many activities, the model achieved an accuracy of 84.5%. A recent dissertation reported an extensive analysis of an innovative proposal using a motion-unit-based hidden Markov model [22]. The results confirmed that the approach (with a recognition rate over 90%) outperformed many existing works using benchmark datasets, including CSL-SHARE, ENABL3S, and UniMiB SHAR. It also outperformed another newly proposed method using various deep learning-based approaches, including convolutional neural networks, long short-term memory, and ResNet [23]. Attention is also drawn to a novel approach for automatic speech recognition and kinesiology to construct an HAR model that ensures expandability, generalizability, interpretability, and effective model training [24].

One of the rule-based HAR models was built using a random forest (RF) [16]. The model considered six activities, namely walking upstairs, walking downstairs, walking, standing, sitting, and laying. Researchers collected samples from 30 volunteers for the experimental analysis. The results had a sensitivity of 98%, a precision of 98.5%, an accuracy of 98%, and F1-score of 98%. Another approach was built using a decision tree (DT) [17]. Ten activities, namely walking, standing, sitting, eating, drinking (standing), drinking (sitting), sitting (standing), smoking (sitting), smoking (standing), and smoking (walking) were defined for analysis. For static activities, the model achieved an accuracy of 72%, whereas, for dynamic activities, an accuracy of 78% was observed.

K-nearest neighbor (KNN) is one of the most common distance-based algorithms. In [18], the authors enhanced the KNN algorithm with random projection to recognize 13 human activities: pushing a wheelchair, jumping, jogging, going downstairs, going upstairs, turning right, turning left, walking right (circle), walking left (circle), walking forward, lying down, sitting, and standing. The HAR model achieved an accuracy of 92.6%. Another work [19] applied two variants of KNN, namely fuzzy KNN and evidence theoretic KNN for the HAR of twenty-nine activities using three benchmark datasets. The achieved accuracies were 77%, 93%, and 97% for datasets with 14, 10, and 5 activities, respectively.

For the optimization-based approach, a support vector machine (SVM) with a radial basis function was proposed [20]. Six human activities were considered, namely laying, standing, sitting, walking downstairs, walking upstairs, and walking. The experimental result showed that the model achieved an accuracy of 96.6%. In [21], an artificial neural network (ANN) model was built for the HAR of six human activities. The activities were laying, standing, sitting, walking, walking downstairs, and walking upstairs. An accuracy of 96.7% was observed.

A detailed pipeline was proposed for HAR research [25]. The key components involved are devices, sensors, software, data acquisition, segmentation, annotation, biosignal processing, feature extraction, feature study, activity modeling, training, recognition, evaluation, and application.

Table 1. Summary of the performance of existing works on HAR.

Work	Sensors	Feature Extraction	Method	Context Awareness	Dataset	Activities	CV	Results
[12]	Physiological, infrared debit, and state-change sensors; microphones	Raw sensor data	FL	No	One-day of data (simulated data)	Exercising, laying, sitting down, standing up, walking, and sleeping	No	Accuracy: 97%
[13]	Head-mounted camera	Motion coefficient	FL	No	Epic kitchens dataset (3088 samples) [26]	Cleaning, washing dishes, and cooking	No	Accuracy: 70% Precision: 58.4% Recall: 54.7%
[14]	Accelerometer	Value and variance of the magnitude, pitch, and roll; fundamental DC component of FFT	NB	No	16,5633 samples [27]	Walking, standing-up, standing, laying down, and sitting	No	Accuracy: 89.5%
[15]	Airborne microphone, electrogoniometer accelerometer, electromyography, and gyroscope	Built-in function using ASK2.0	HMM	No	CSL-SHARE dataset [28]	Two-leg jump, one-leg jump, shuffle-right, shuffle-left, V-cut-right-right-first, V-cut-right-left-first, V-cut-left-left-first, run, spin-right-right-first, spin-right-left-first, spin-left-right-first, spin-left-left-first, walk-downstairs, walk-upstairs, walk-curve-right, walk-curve-left, walk, stand-to-sit, sit-to-stand, stand, and sit	five-fold	Accuracy: 84.5%
[16]	Gyroscope and accelerometer	Time –frequency domain analysis	RF	No	New dataset (30 volunteers)	Walking upstairs, walking downstairs, walking, standing, sitting, and laying	No	Accuracy: 98% F1-score: 98% Sensitivity: 98% Precision: 98.5%
[17]	Gyroscope and accelerometer	Absolute difference, correlation, integration, range, median, kurtosis, root-mean-square skewness, standard deviation, mean, maximum, and minimum	DT	Yes	3 month dataset (11 volunteers) [29]	Walk, stand, sit, eat, drink (standing), drink (sitting), sit (standing), smoke (sitting), smoke (standing), and smoke (walking)	No	Accuracy: 72% (static activities) Accuracy: 78% (dynamic activities)
[18]	Accelerometer, gyroscope	CNN	KNN with random projection	No	Wearable action recognition database [30,31]	Push wheelchair, jump, jog, go downstairs, go upstairs, turn right, turn left, walk right (circle), walk left (circle), walk forward, lie down, sit, and stand	k-fold (unspecified k)	Accuracy: 92.6%
[19]	Motion, temperature, phone usage, door, and pressure sensors	Weighted features from all sensors	Evidence theoretic KNN and fuzzy KNN	No	Kyoto1, Kyoto7, and Kasteren	Clean, cook, eat, phone call, wash hands, bed to toilet, prepare breakfast, groom, sleep, work at computer, work at dining room table, groom, prepare dinner, prepare lunch, watch tv, leave the house, the use toilet, take shower, obtain snack, obtain a drink, use washing machine, and wash dishes	LOO	Accuracy: 97% (Kyoto1) Accuracy: 77% (Kyoto7) Accuracy: 93% (Kasteren)
[20]	Accelerometer and gyroscope	Time–frequency domain analysis	SVM	No	10,299 samples [32]	Laying, standing, sitting, walking downstairs, walking upstairs, and walking	No	Accuracy: 96.6%
[21]	Accelerometer	Cyclic attribution technique	ANN	No	UCI-HAR (30 volunteers) [33]	Laying, standing, sitting, walking, walking downstairs, and walking upstairs	No	Accuracy: 96.7%

summarizes the key elements (sensors, feature extraction, method, context awareness, dataset, activities, cross-validation, and results) of the existing works [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. The key research limitations of the existing works include the following:

• There are two major types of feature extraction. Major works [12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21] utilized the traditional feature extraction process. There has been less discussion (e.g., [18]) of automatic feature extraction using a deep learning algorithm, which may extract more representative features and eliminate the domain knowledge of all human activities;
• The methodology in the existing works [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21] utilized traditional classification algorithms that may not work well with the nature of a high-dimensional feature space;
• Context awareness was omitted in the design and formulation of most of the existing works [12,13,14,15,16,18,19,20,21];
• Experimental analyses used limited benchmark datasets (and, thus, limited types of activities), with one dataset in most of the works [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21] and three in [19]; and
• Cross-validation was omitted in most works [12,13,14,16,17,18,20,21]. It is important to fine-tune the hyperparameters and to evaluate the issue of model overfitting.

1.1. Research Contributions

To address the limitations of the research works, we propose a combined 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN algorithm (3D-2D-1D-CNN) for feature extraction and a weighted twin support vector machine (WTSVM) for the HAR model. The contributions of the algorithm are explained as follows:

• The 3D-2D-1D-CNN algorithm leverages the ability of automatic feature extraction. An ablation study confirms that the 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN achieve accuracy improvements of 6.27%, 4.13%, and 2.40%, respectively;
• The WTSVM takes the advantage of high-dimensional feature space and outperforms the twin SVM by 3.26% in terms of accuracy;
• Context awareness is incorporated to enhance the formulation of the HAR model, with an accuracy improvement of 2.4%; and
• Compared to existing works, our proposed algorithm enhances the accuracy by 0.1–40.1% with an increase of the total number of activities by 230–3100%.

1.2. Paper Organization

This paper is structured with five sections. Section 2 presents the details of the methodology of the 3D-2D-1D-CNN and WTSVM. The experimental results of the algorithm and its comparison are presented in Section 3. To investigate the contributions of the individual elements of the algorithm, ablation studies are carried out. A conclusion is drawn, with directions of future work, in Section 4.

2. Methodology

The methodology of the proposed HAR model comprises a feature extraction module using the 3D-2D-1D-CNN and a classification module using the WTSVM. In the following two subsections, the design and formulations are shared.

2.1. Feature Extraction Module Using the 3D-2D-1D-CNN

The feature extraction module is indispensable in machine learning. Traditional statistical [34,35] and time–frequency approaches [36,37] are not employed, since these approaches may not be effective in fully extracting representative features for a complex context-aware HAR problem with many human activities. Therefore, automatic feature extraction via CNN was chosen. Feature extractions via the 3D-CNN [38], 2D-CNN [39], and 1D-CNN [40] have been used in different applications with satisfactory performances. The features extracted using these algorithms may differ from each other. Combing the algorithms and, thus, merging more representative features is expected to further enhance the performance of the context-aware HAR model.

Figure 1 shows the ensemble architecture of the proposed 3D-2D-1D-CNN algorithm for feature extraction, which supports the classification model using the WTSVM. Three input layers are required to handle the inputs for the 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN, as in a sub-model of the 3D-2D-1D-CNN algorithm. The workflows of the 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN share similarities, with convolution operations, max pooling operations, and flatten operations.

The convolution operation acts on two samples to generate outputs representing the pattern change between the samples. The concept of pooling aims to reduce the data size, the training complexity of the model, and model overfitting. The maximum pooling operation takes the maximum values in the blocks to extract significant features. The flatten operation converts the data into a 1D matrix that is then passed into the fully connected layer. The features obtained in each algorithm will be merged into a fully connected layer. The design takes advantage of the effective coordination of training individual 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN. It also facilitates the extraction of more representative features to enhance the performance of the HAR model. Ablation studies will be carried out to verify the contributions of the proposed ensemble architecture.

2.2. Classification Module Using a WTSVM

The basis of a weighted support vector machine (WSVM) for an imbalanced binary classification problem [41]—the hyperplane (or decision function)—is defined as

$$h\left(x\right)=w^{T}x+b=0$$

(1)

with weighted vector $w\in R^N$ and bias $b\in R$.

The constrained problem of a WSVM with a maximum margin hyperplane is given by:

$$\begin{gathered} \underset{w,b,{\beta }_{-},{\beta }_{+}}{\min }\frac{1}{2}{‖w‖}^2+p_{-}{\beta }_{-}+p_{+}{\beta }_{+} \\ \mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}. X_{-}w+c_{-}b\le c_{-}-{\beta }_{-} \\ {X}_{+}w+c_{+}b\le c_{+}-{\beta }_{+} \\ {\beta }_{-}\ge 0 \\ {\beta }_{+}\ge 0 \end{gathered}$$

(2)

where the regularization term $\frac{1}{2}{‖w‖}^2$ represents the maximum margin of the two parallel hyperplanes; $p_{-}$ and $p_{+}$ are the penalty parameters to control the weights between terms for the negative class and positive class, respectively; ${\beta }_{-}$ and ${\beta }_{+}$ are the slack variables for the negative class and positive class, respectively; $X_{-}$ and $X_{+}$ are the training matrices for the negative class and positive class, respectively; and $c_{-}$ and $c_{+}$ are the vectors for the negative class and positive class, respectively. In general, larger Lagrange multipliers may be assigned to some support vectors that help reduce the negative impact of imbalanced classification in an imbalanced dataset (details are provided in Section 3.1).

On the other hand, the basic formulations for the twin support vector machine (TSVM) are illustrated as follows. Different from WSVM, TSVM considers two non-parallel hyperplanes, $h_{-}\left(x\right)$ and $h_{+}\left(x\right)$:

$$h_{-}\left(x\right)=w_{-}^{T}x+b_{-}=0$$

(3)

$$h_{+}\left(x\right)=w_{+}^{T}x+b_{+}=0$$

(4)

with the weighted vectors $w_{-}\in R^N$ and $w_{+}\in R^N$ and the biases $b_{-}\in R$ and $b_{+}\in R$. In these formulations, $h_{-}\left(x\right)$ is close to $X_{+}$ and far away from $X_{-}$, and $h_{+}\left(x\right)$ is close to $X_{-}$ and far away from $X_{+}$.

The constrained problems of the TSVM are defined as:

$$\begin{gathered} \underset{w_{-},b_{-},{\beta }_{+}}{\min }\frac{1}{2}{‖X_{-}{w}_{-}+c_{-}{b}_{-}‖}^2+p_1{c_{+}^T\beta }_{+} \\ \mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}. X_{+}{w}_{-}+c_{+}{b}_{-}\le c_{+}-{\beta }_{+} \\ {\beta }_{+}\ge 0 \end{gathered}$$

(5)

$$\begin{gathered} \underset{w_{+},b_{+},{\beta }_{-}}{\min }\frac{1}{2}{‖X_{+}{w}_{+}+c_{+}{b}_{+}‖}^2+p_2{c_{-}^T\beta }_{-} \\ \mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}. X_{-}{w}_{+}+c_{-}{b}_{+}\le c_{-}-{\beta }_{-} \\ {\beta }_{-}\ge 0 \end{gathered}$$

(6)

with the parameters $p_1>0$ and $p_2>0$.

Regarding our proposed WTSVM, it features (i) weights to adjust the level of the sensitivity of the hyperplane to respond to the imbalance ratio and (ii) majority points for the hyperplanes. To be practical, we formulated the WTSVM with a non-linear kernel function ($K$). The surfaces generated by the kernel function are given by

$$h_{-}\left(x\right)=K\left(x^T,X^T\right)w_{-}+b_{-}=0$$

(7)

$$h_{+}\left(x\right)=K\left(x^T,X^T\right)w_{+}+b_{+}=0$$

(8)

The optimization problems are defined as

$$\begin{gathered} \underset{w_{-},b_{-},{\beta }_{+}}{\min }\frac{1}{2}\left({‖w_{-}‖}^2+b_{-}^2\right) \\ +\frac{1}{2}{p}_1\left({\left(K{\left(X_{1-,}X\right)w}_{-}{+c}_{1-}{b}_{-}\right)}^T{D}_1\left(K\left(X_{1-,}X\right)w_{-}+c_{-}{b}_{-}\right)+{\beta }_{+}^T{\beta }_{+}\right) \\ \mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}. \left(K\left(X_{+},X\right)w_{-}+c_{+}{b}_{-}\right)+{\beta }_{+}\ge c_{+} \\ {\beta }_{+}\ge 0 \end{gathered}$$

(9)

$$\begin{gathered} \underset{w_{+},b_{+},{\gamma }_{-}}{\min }\frac{1}{2}\left({‖w_{+}‖}^2+b_{+}^2\right) \\ +\frac{1}{2}{p}_2\left({\left(K{\left(X_{+,}X\right)w}_{+}{+c}_{+}{b}_{+}\right)}^T\left(K\left(X_{+,}X\right)w_{+}+c_{+}{b}_{+}\right)+{\beta }_{-}^T{D}_2{\beta }_{-}\right) \\ \mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.-\left(K\left(X_{2-},X\right)w_{+}+c_{2-}{b}_{+}\right)+{\beta }_{-}\ge c_{-} \\ {\beta }_{-}\ge 0 \end{gathered}$$

(10)

The Lagrange function of (9) is defined as

$$\begin{gathered} L\left(w_{-},b_{-},{\beta }_{+},\alpha \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left({‖w_{-}‖}^2+b_{-}^2\right) \\ +\frac{1}{2}{p}_1\left({\left(K{\left(X_{1-,}X\right)w}_{-}{+c}_{1-}{b}_{-}\right)}^T\left(K\left(X_{1-,}X\right)w_{-}+c_{-}{b}_{-}\right)+{\beta }_{+}^T{D}_1{\beta }_{+})+{\alpha }^T(K\left(X_{+},X\right)w_{-}+c_{+}{b}_{-}-{\beta }_{+}+c_{+}\right) \end{gathered}$$

(11)

with the Lagrange multiplier $\alpha ={\left({\alpha }_1,\dots ,{\alpha }_{N_1}\right)}^T$. Using Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions, we have

$$K{\left(X_{1-,}X\right)}^T\left(K\left(X_{1-,}X\right)w_{-}+c_{-}{b}_{-}\right){+p}_1{w}_{-}+K\left(X_{+},X\right)\alpha =0$$

(12)

$$c_{-}^T\left(K\left(X_{1-,}X\right)w_{-}+c_{-}{b}_{-}\right)+p_1{b}_{-}+c_{+}^T\alpha =0$$

(13)

$$p_1{\beta }_{+}-\alpha =0$$

(14)

$$\left(K\left(X_{+},X\right)w_{-}+c_{+}{b}_{-}\right)+{\beta }_{+}\ge c_{+} {\beta }_{+}\ge 0$$

(15)

$${\alpha }^T\left(\left(K\left(X_{+},X\right)w_{-}+c_{+}\right)b_{-}-{\beta }_{+}+c_{+}\right)=0 \alpha \ge 0$$

(16)

The Lagrange dual problem of (9) becomes

$$\underset{\alpha }{\max }-\frac{1}{2}{\alpha }^T\left(\left[K{\left(X_{+},X\right)c}_{+}\right]{\left[{\left[K\left(X_{1-,}X\right)c_{-}\right]}^T\left[K\left(X_{1-,}X\right)c_{-}\right]+p_{1}I\right]}^{-1}{\left[K{\left(X_{+},X\right)c}_{+}\right]}^T+\frac{1}{p_1}{D}_1^{-1}\right)\alpha +c_{+}^T\alpha$$

(17)

with $\alpha \ge 0$. Likewise, the Lagrange dual problem of (10) becomes

$$\underset{\alpha }{\max }-\frac{1}{2}{\gamma }^T\left(\left[K\left(X_{2-},X\right)c_{2-}\right]{\left[{\left[K\left(X_{+,}X\right)c_{+}\right]}^T\left[K\left(X_{+,}X\right)c_{+}\right]+p_{2}I\right]}^{-1}{\left[K\left(X_{2-},X\right)c_{2-}\right]}^T+\frac{1}{2}{D}_2^{-1}\right)\gamma +c_{2-}^T\gamma$$

(18)

with the Lagrange multiplier $\gamma ={\left({\gamma }_1,\dots ,{\gamma }_{N_2}\right)}^T$.

3. Performance Evaluation of the Proposed 3D-2D-1D-CNN-Based WTSVM for HAR

The proposed 3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM algorithm was evaluated using a benchmark dataset. This was followed by ablation studies to quantify the effectiveness of the individual components: 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, 1D-CNN, weighted SVM, and twin SVM. We aimed to confirm that all components benefit the performance of the HAR model.

3.1. Dataset

To evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm, a benchmark dataset, namely the ExtraSensory dataset, was chosen [42]. In this dataset, a mobile application was used to perform measurements of sixty volunteers for a one-minute recording with three twenty-second segments of various human activities. Motion-reactive sensors were used to collect data from the magnetometer, gyroscope, accelerometer, audio, compass, and location services. The dataset consisted of 308,306 labelled samples. Two types of labels were assigned to each record: (i) the primary activity (seven activities were included, namely bicycling, running, walking, standing and moving, standing in place, sitting, and lying down), and (ii) the secondary activity (a total of ninety-six specific contexts of various aspects, such as sleeping, eating, and cooking), which supplemented the primary activities. Each record could be linked with only one primary activity and multiple secondary activities. Figure 2 presents the number of samples of each of the primary activities. For activities defined as secondary activities, the number of samples is summarized in

Table 2. Summary of the number of samples of the secondary activities.

Name of Activity	No. of Samples	Name of Activity	No. of Samples	Name of Activity	No. of Samples	Name of Activity	No. of Samples
Phone on table	11,6425	At home	10,3889	Sleeping	83,055	Indoors	57,021
At school	43,221	Computer work	38,081	Talking	36,293	At work	29,574
Studying	26,277	With friends	24,737	Phone in pocket	24,226	Relaxing	21,223
Surfing the internet	19,416	Phone away from me	17,937	Eating	16,594	Phone in hand	16,308
Watching TV	13,311	Outside	11,967	Phone in bag	10,760	Listening to music with earphones	10,228
Written work	9083	Driving as driver	7975	With family	7975	With co-workers	6224
In class	6110	In a car	6083	Texting	5936	Listening to music without earphones	5589
Drinking non-alcohol	5544	In a meeting	5153	With a pet	5125	Listening to audio without earphones	4359
Reading a book	4223	Cooking	4029	Listening to audio with earphones	4029	Lab work	3848
Cleaning	3806	Grooming	3064	Exercising	2679	Toilet	2655
Driving as a passenger	2526	At a restaurant	2519	Playing videogames	2441	Laughing	2428
Dressing	2233	Shower bath	2087	Shopping	1841	On a bus	1794
Stretching	1667	At a party	1470	Drinking alcohol	1456	Washing dishes	1228
Smoking	1183	At the gym	1151	On a date	1086	Strolling	806
Going up the stairs	798	Going down the stairs	774	Singing	651	On a plane	630
Doing laundry	556	At a bar	551	At a concert	538	Manual labor	494
Playing phone games	403	On a train	344	Drawing	273	Elliptical machine	233
At the beach	230	At the pool	216	Elevator	200	Treadmill	164
Playing baseball	163	Lifting weights	162	Skateboarding	131	Yoga	128
Bathing	121	Dancing	115	Playing a musical instrument	114	Stationary bike	86
Motorbike	86	Transfer from bed to stand	73	Vacuuming	68	Transfer from stand to bed	63
Limping	62	Playing frisbee	54	At a sports event	52	Phone someone else using IT	41
Jumping	29	Phone strapped	27	Gardening	21	Ranking leaves	21
At sea	18	On a boat	18	Wheelchair	9	Whistling	5

. As illustrative examples, Figure 3 shows the samples of the one-axis accelerometer readings with the phone-accelerometer (walking) and the watch-accelerometer, respectively.

3.2. Results

Owing to a few samples of the secondary activities of wheelchair (9) and whistling (5), a subject-wise K-fold cross-validation with K = 5 (instead of 10) was employed, which was also confirmed to be a common setting in the training and testing of machine learning models [43,44,45]. Four typical kernel functions, linear, radial basis, sigmoid, and polynomial, were chosen for the WTSVM model. Figure 4 shows the training accuracy and testing accuracy of the proposed 3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM using four kernel functions on the ExtraSensory dataset. The average training accuracy and average testing accuracy were 98.3% and 98.1%, respectively. There was only a small deviation between the average training and testing accuracy.

To analyze the effectiveness of the 3D-2D-1D-CNN algorithm for feature extraction, an ablation study was carried out to study the contributions of the 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN. The training accuracy, testing accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score are summarized in

Table 3. Accuracy of the WTSVM using the 3D-2D-1D-CNN, 2D-1D-CNN, 3D-1D-CNN, and 3D-2D-CNN algorithms.

Method	Training Accuracy (%)/Testing Accuracy (%)/Precision (%)/Recall (%)/F1 Score (%)
	Fold 1	Fold 2	Fold 3	Fold 4	Fold 5
3D-2D-1D-CNN	98.7/98.3/98.5/98.2/98.3	98.0/97.7/98.1/97.6/97.8	98.5/98.3/98.4/98.2/98.3	98.3/98.4/98.6/98.3/98.4	98.2/97.9/98.3/97.7/98.0
2D-1D-CNN	92.8/92.5/92.8/92.3/92.5	92.2/92.4/92.3/92.4/92.3	93.1/92.6/92.8/92.5/92.6	92.5/92.0/91.8/92.0/91.9	92.1/91.7/92.0/91.6/91.8
3D-1D-CNN	94.4/93.9/94.2/93.8/94.0	94.8/94.6/94.9/94.5/94.7	94.2/94.5/94.7/94.4/94.5	93.9/94.2/94.6/94.0/94.3	94.5/94.2/94.4/94.1/94.2
3D-2D-CNN	95.9/95.5/95.7/95.4/95.5	95.7/96.1/96.0/96.1/96.0	96.3/95.8/96.2/95.7/95.9	96.0/96.4/96.3/96.4/96.3	95.9/95.7/96.0/95.6/95.8

. The key findings of the results are detailed as follows:

• The average training accuracy, average testing accuracy, average precision, average recall, and average F1 score were 98.3%, 98.1%, 98.4%, 98%, and 98.2%, respectively, for the 3D-2D-1D-CNN algorithm; 92.5%, 92.2%, 92.3%, 92.1%, and 92.2%, respectively, for the 2D-1D-CNN algorithm; 94.4%, 94.3%, 94.6%, 94.2%, and 94.3%, respectively, for the 3D-1D-CNN algorithm; and 96.0%, 95.9%, 96%, 95.8%, and 95.9%, respectively, for the 3D-2D-CNN algorithm. The results show that the average training accuracy was enhanced by 6.27%, 4.13%, and 2.40%, respectively;
• The ranking of the algorithms (from best to worst) based on the training accuracy and testing accuracy was 3D-2D-1D-CNN, 3D-2D-CNN, 3D-1D-CNN, and 2D-1D-CNN. This revealed the contributions of the individual components—the 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN algorithms.

In addition, to analyze the effectiveness of the WTSVM, an ablation study was conducted to study the contributions of the weighting factors and the twin strategy.

Table 4. Accuracy of the 3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM, WSVM, and TSVM algorithms.

Method	Training Accuracy (%)/Testing Accuracy (%)
	Fold 1	Fold 2	Fold 3	Fold 4	Fold 5
WTSVM	98.7/98.3/98.5/98.2/98.3	98.0/97.7/98.1/97.6/97.8	98.5/98.3/98.4/98.2/98.3	98.3/98.4/98.6/98.3/98.4	98.2/97.9/98.3/97.7/98.0
WSVM	95.5/95.8/96.0/95.7/95.8	94.9/94.6/94.4/94.7/94.5	95.0/94.5/94.7/94.4/94.5	95.4/95.8/96.0/95.7/95.8	95.0/94.6/94.9/94.5/94.7
TSVM	96.1/95.7/95.9/95.6/95.7	95.9/96.2/96.5/96.1/96.3	96.3/96.0/96.3/95.9/96.1	96.0/95.6/95.8/95.5/95.6	96.3/95.9/96.3/95.7/96.0

summarizes the training accuracy and testing accuracy using the WTSVM, WSVM, and TSVM. The key observations are illustrated as follows:

• The average training accuracy, average testing accuracy, average precision, average recall, and average F1 score were 98.3%, 98.1%, 98.4%, 98%, and 98.2%, respectively, for the WTSVM algorithm; 95.2%, 95.1%, 95.2%, 95.0%, and 95.1%, respectively, for the WSVM algorithm; and 96.1%, 95.9%, 96.2%, 95.8%, and 95.9%, respectively, for the TSVM algorithm. The enhancement of the average training accuracy by the WTSVM algorithm was 2.29% and 3.26%, respectively;
• The ranking of the algorithms (from best to worst) based on the training accuracy and testing accuracy was WTSVM, TSVM, and WSVM. This revealed the contributions of the individual components, the WTSVM, WSVM, and TSVM algorithms.

To evaluate the hypotheses, if the proposed approach outperformed all/some of the other approaches, a non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test [46,47] was carried out.

Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Hypotheses	Results
H0: 3D-2D-1D-CNN = 2D-1D-CNN; H1: 3D-2D-1D-CNN > 2D-1D-CNN	Reject H0
H0: 3D-2D-1D-CNN = 3D-1D-CNN; H1: 3D-2D-1D-CNN > 3D-1D-CNN	Reject H0
H0: 3D-2D-1D-CNN = 3D-2D-CNN; H1: 3D-2D-1D-CNN > 3D-2D-CNN	Reject H0
H0: WTSVM = WSVM; H1: WTSVM > WSVM	Reject H0
H0: WTSVM = TSVM; H1: WTSVM > TSVM	Reject H0

summarizes the results of the five hypotheses. The p-values of all hypotheses were less than 0.05, suggesting that the proposed approach significantly outperformed the other approaches in the ablation studies.

The performance of the proposed 3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM was compared with existing works [42,48,49,50,51] using the benchmark ExtraSensory dataset [42], and our work was evaluated using the benchmark datasets Kyoto1, Kyoto7, and Kasteren [30,31].

Table 6. Comparisons between existing works and our work.

Work	Methodology	Dataset	Number of Activities	Cross-Validation	Accuracy (%)
[42]	Early fusion	ExtraSensory [42]	25	5-fold	87
[48]	Random forest		15	10-fold	84
[49]	CNN with random forest		4	5-fold	52.8 (F score)
[50]	Deep graph CNN		25	N/A	83.8 (F score)
[51]	SVM		5	Single-split	81.6
Proposed	3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM		96	5-fold	98.1
[18]	Evidence-theoretic KNN and fuzzy KNN	Kyoto1 [30]	5	Leave-one-out	97
[52]	discriminative and generative SVM		5	Leave-one-out	98
Proposed	3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM		5	5-fold	98.9
[18]	Evidence-theoretic KNN and fuzzy KNN	Kyoto7 [30]	14	Leave-one-out	78
[52]	discriminative and generative SVM		14	Leave-one-out	81
Proposed	3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM		14	5-fold	88.2
[18]	Evidence-theoretic KNN and fuzzy KNN	Kasteren [31]	10	Leave-one-out	92
[52]	discriminative and generative SVM		10	Leave-one-out	95
Proposed	3D-2D-1D-CNN-based WTSVM		10	5-fold	97.6

summarizes the details of the comparisons. The key observations are summarized as follows:

• For ExtraSensory, our work enhanced the accuracy by 12.8–20.2% [42,48,51] and enhanced the F score by 17.2–86.0% [49,50];
• For Kyoto1, our work enhanced the accuracy by 0.918–2.89% [18,19];
• For Kyoto7, our work enhanced the accuracy by 8.89–13.1% [18,19];
• For Kasteren, our work enhanced the accuracy by 2.74–6.09% [18,19].

The results suggest that the proposed algorithm can manage varying scales of HAR problems with different numbers of activities. Regarding the computational complexity, the proposed algorithm requires more training time due to the complexity of the feature extraction process (3D-2D-1D-CNN). Nevertheless, this will not significantly affect the applicability of low-latency decisions in practice, because the classifier is based on WTSVM, a traditional machine learning classifier.

4. Conclusions

It is desired for a context-aware HAR to be accurate and able to support the recognition of many activities. In this paper, we proposed 3D-CNN, 2D-CNN, and 1D-CNN algorithms (3D-2D-1D-CNN) for feature extraction and a weighted twin support vector machine (WTSVM) for an HAR model. A performance evaluation was carried out using four benchmark datasets. The proposed algorithm achieves an average training accuracy of 98.3% and an average testing accuracy of 98.1%. To investigate the contributions of the five individual components, namely the 3D-CNN, the 2D-CNN, the 1D-CNN, the weighted samples of the SVM, and the twin strategy of solving two hyperplanes, ablation studies were conducted. The results show the enhancement of the average training accuracy by 6.27%, 4.13%, 2.40%, 2.29%, and 3.26%, respectively, by the five individual components. In addition, we compared our work to 10 existing works. The comparison showed that our work enhanced the accuracy in four benchmark datasets.

The research team would like to suggest future research directions as follows: (i) generate more samples in the small classes, as in Table 1, using data generation algorithms such as the family of generative adversarial networks to reduce the issue of imbalanced recognition [53,54]; (ii) conduct online learning with new classes [55,56]; (iii) consider time-series image data [57,58] as inputs for the 3D-2D-1D-CNN algorithm; (iv) consider advanced feature extraction methods via high-level features [59], stacking, and feature space reduction [60,61]; and (v) investigate other non-training-based statistical methods of low-cost HAR algorithms [62,63].