Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:09:14.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hybrid deep learning model-based human action recognition in indoor environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Manoj Kumar Sain*
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics and Communication, The LNM Institute of Information Technology, Jaipur, India
Rabul Hussain Laskar
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics and Communication, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam, India
Joyeeta Singha
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics and Communication, The LNM Institute of Information Technology, Jaipur, India
Sandeep Saini
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics and Communication, The LNM Institute of Information Technology, Jaipur, India
*
Corresponding author: Manoj Kumar Sain; Email: manoj.sain@lnmiit.ac.in
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human activity recognition (HAR) is an emerging challenge among researchers. HAR has many possible uses in various fields, including healthcare, sports, and security. Furthermore, there are only a few publicly accessible datasets for classifying and recognizing physical activity in the literature, and these datasets comprise fewer activities. We created and compared our dataset with available datasets, that is, NTU-RGBD, UP-FALL, UR-Fall, WISDM, and UCI HAR. The proposed dataset consists of seven activities: eating, exercise, handshake, situps, vomiting, headache, and walking. The activities were collected from 20 people between the ages of 25 and 40 years using Kinect V2 sensor at 30 FPS. For classification, we use deep learning architectures based on convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM). Additionally, we developed a novel hybrid deep learning model by combining a CNN, a bidirectional LSTM unit, and a fully connected layer for activity identification. The suggested model builds unique guided features using the preprocessed skeleton coordinates and their distinctive geometrical and kinematic aspects. Results from the experiment are contrasted with the performance of stand-alone CNNs, LSTMs, and ConvLSTM. The proposed model’s accuracy of 99.5% surpasses that of CNN, LSTM, and ConvLSTM, which have accuracy rates of 95.76%, 97%, and 98.89%, respectively. Our proposed technique is invariant of stance, speed, individual, clothes, etc. The proposed dataset sample is accessible to the general public.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table I. Related work-based human action recognition system.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Proposed methodology.

Figure 2

Table II. Kinect motion sensor V2 specification.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Dataset recording setup.

Figure 4

Table III. Dataset description.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Joints details as per activity.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Samples from WISDM, UCI-HAR, and NTU-RGBD datasets.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Classification process for NTU-RGBD, UP-FALL, and UR-Fall datasets.

Figure 8

Table IV. Set of features specifications.

Figure 9

Figure 6. Windowing and segmentaion.

Figure 10

Figure 7. Geometric and kinematic features.

Figure 11

Figure 8. Proposed classification model.

Figure 12

Table V. Proposed hybrid deep learning model summary.

Figure 13

Figure 9. Human activity samples from LNMIIT-KHAD dataset.

Figure 14

Table VI. Hyperparameter used for model training.

Figure 15

Algorithm 1. Proposed HAR algorithm

Figure 16

Figure 10. Model accuracy variation w.r.t batch size variation during training.

Figure 17

Figure 11. Accuracy and loss versus epochs graphs for different deep learning models.

Figure 18

Table VII. Comparison table for different datasets for different deep learning models.

Figure 19

Table VIII. F1-score, recall, and precision for different deep learning models and proposed model.

Figure 20

Figure 12. Model accuracy variation w.r.t feature frame size.

Figure 21

Figure 13. Real-time accuracy comparison of different classification models.

Figure 22

Figure 14. Confusion matrices for proposed and state-of-the-art architectures.

Figure 23

Figure 15. Classification error for different deep learning models.

Figure 24

Figure 16. Accuracy calculation for walking activity using different classification models.

Figure 25

Figure 17. Accuracy calculation for vomiting activity using different classification models.

Figure 26

Figure 18. Precision, recall, and F1-score variation for different deep learning models.

Figure 27

Table IX. Performance comparison table for LNMIIT-KHAD and NTU-RGBD dataset.

Figure 28

Table X. Model testing accuracy on different SOTA datasets and proposed dataset.