Activity recognition using a wrist-worn inertial measurement unit: A case study for industrial assembly lines

• Published in: 2009 17th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation pp. 401 - 405
• Main Authors: Koskimaki, H., Huikari, V., Siirtola, P., Laurinen, P., Roning, J.
• Format: Conference Proceeding
• Language: English
• Published: IEEE 01-01-2009
• Subjects: Acceleration; Accelerometers; Assembly; Drilling; Measurement units; Nearest neighbor searches; Performance evaluation; Voting; Wearable sensors; Wrist
• ISBN: 1424446848; 9781424446841
• DOI: 10.1109/MED.2009.5164574

As wearable sensors are becoming more common, their utilization in real-world applications is also becoming more attractive. In this study, a single wrist-worn inertial measurement unit was attached to the active wrist of a worker and acceleration and angular speed information was used to decide what activity the worker was performing at certain time intervals. This activity information can then be used for proactive instruction systems or to ensure that all the needed work phases are performed. In this study, the selected activities were basic tasks of hammering, screwing, spanner use and using a power drill for screwing. In addition, a null activity class consisting of other activities (moving around the post, staying still, changing tools) was defined. The performed activity could then be recognized online by using a sliding window method to divide the data into two-second intervals and overlapping two adjacent windows by 1.5 seconds. Thus, the activity was recognized every half second. The method used for the actual recognition was the k nearest neighbor method with a specific distance boundary for classifying completely new events as null data. In addition, the final class was decided by using a majority vote to classifications of three adjacent windows. The results showed that almost 90 percent accuracy can be achieved with this kind of setting; the activity-specific accuracies for hammering, screwing, spanner use, power drilling and null data were 96.4%, 89.7%, 89.5%, 77.6% and 89.0%, respectively. In addition, in a case with completely new null events, use of the specific distance measure improved accuracy from 68.6% to 82.3%.