skip to main content
10.1145/3277593.3277628acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiotConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

The case for ambient sensing for human activity detection

Published:15 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Human activity detection using various sources of data is an important problem due to its application in various domains, such as health-care, elderly care, security/safety, etc. Traditionally, this activity detection is carried out using multimedia data, including audio and video resources. Recently, the Internet of Things (IoT) has led to highly-improved computation and communication capabilities even within the smallest devices, giving rise to wearable devices. These devices can collect useful data about movements and thus enable detecting human activities. However, both traditional methods (multimedia) and wearable device-based methods completely expose users, resulting in severe privacy issues. Thus, it is crucial to be able to still detect these activities without compromising the user's privacy. In this paper, we make a case where ambient sensing (sensors that collect data representing only environmental changes, such as temperature, lighting, etc.) can be used to detect human activities. Since the available data corresponds to only the status of the surrounding environment, the user privacy can be preserved. We demonstrate which aspects of ambient sensing methods are desirable and what types of applications can benefit from them.

References

  1. Oya Aran, Dairazalia Sanchez-Cortes, Minh-Tri Do, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2016. Anomaly detection in elderly daily behavior in ambient sensing environments. In International Workshop on Human Behavior Understanding. Springer, 51--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Akin Avci, Stephan Bosch, Mihai Marin-Perianu, Raluca Marin-Perianu, and Paul Havinga. 2010. Activity recognition using inertial sensing for healthcare, wellbeing and sports applications: A survey. In Architecture of computing systems (ARCS), 2010 23rd international conference on. VDE, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Neha Belapurkar, Jacob Harbour, Sagar Shelke, and Baris Aksanli. 2018. Building Data-Aware and Energy-Efficient Smart Spaces. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. AK Bourke, JV O'brien, and GM Lyons. 2007. Evaluation of a threshold-based tri-axial accelerometer fall detection algorithm. Gait & posture 26, 2 (2007), 194--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Fabian Caba Heilbron, Victor Escorcia, Bernard Ghanem, and Juan Carlos Niebles. 2015. Activitynet: A large-scale video benchmark for human activity understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 961--970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Pierluigi Casale, Oriol Pujol, and Petia Radeva. 2011. Human activity recognition from accelerometer data using a wearable device. In Iberian Conference on Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis. Springer, 289--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Yu-Liang Hsu, Po-Huan Chou, Hsing-Cheng Chang, Shyan-Lung Lin, Shih-Chin Yang, Heng-Yi Su, Chih-Chien Chang, Yuan-Sheng Cheng, and Yu-Chen Kuo. 2017. Design and implementation of a smart home system using multisensor data fusion technology. Sensors 17, 7 (2017), 1631.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Shian-Ru Ke, Hoang Le Uyen Thuc, Yong-Jin Lee, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Jang-Hee Yoo, and Kyoung-Ho Choi. 2013. A review on video-based human activity recognition. Computers 2, 2 (2013), 88--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Oscar D Lara, Miguel A Labrador, and others. 2013. A survey on human activity recognition using wearable sensors. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 15, 3 (2013), 1192--1209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Subhas Chandra Mukhopadhyay. 2015. Wearable sensors for human activity monitoring: A review. IEEE sensors journal 15, 3 (2015), 1321--1330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Enrique Bermejo Nievas, Oscar Deniz Suarez, Gloria Bueno García, and Rahul Sukthankar. 2011. Violence detection in video using computer vision techniques. In International conference on Computer analysis of images and patterns. Springer, 332--339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Wei Niu, Jiao Long, Dan Han, and Yuan-Fang Wang. 2004. Human activity detection and recognition for video surveillance.. In ICME, Vol. 1. 719--722.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Serge Offermans, Aravind Kota Gopalakrishna, Harm van Essen, and Tanir Özçelebi. 2012. Breakout 404: a smart space implementation for lighting services in the office domain. In Networked Sensing Systems (INSS), 2012 Ninth International Conference on. IEEE, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Michael S Ryoo. 2011. Human activity prediction: Early recognition of ongoing activities from streaming videos. In Computer Vision (ICCV), 2011 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1036--1043. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jaeyong Sung, Colin Ponce, Bart Selman, and Ashutosh Saxena. 2012. Unstructured human activity detection from rgbd images. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 842--849.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jagannathan Venkatesh, Baris Aksanli, and Tajana Simunic Rosing. 2013. Residential energy simulation and scheduling: A case study approach. In Computers and Communications (ISCC), 2013 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 000161--000166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Stephen S Yau, Sandeep KS Gupta, Fariaz Karim, Sheikh I Ahamed, Yu Wang, and Bin Wang. 2003. Smart classroom: Enhancing collaborative learning using pervasive computing technology. In Proceedings of 2nd ASEE International Colloquium on Engineering Education (ASEE2003). 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jun Zhuang, Yue Liu, Yanyang Jia, and Yisong Huang. 2018. User Discomfort Evaluation Research on the Weight and Wearing Mode of Head-Wearable Device. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 98--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    IOT '18: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Internet of Things
    October 2018
    299 pages
    ISBN:9781450365642
    DOI:10.1145/3277593

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 15 October 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate28of84submissions,33%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader