skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Robust Sensor-Orientation-Independent Feature Selection for Animal Activity Recognition on Collar Tags

Published:26 March 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Fundamental challenges faced by real-time animal activity recognition include variation in motion data due to changing sensor orientations, numerous features, and energy and processing constraints of animal tags. This paper aims at finding small optimal feature sets that are lightweight and robust to the sensor's orientation. Our approach comprises four main steps. First, 3D feature vectors are selected since they are theoretically independent of orientation. Second, the least interesting features are suppressed to speed up computation and increase robustness against overfitting. Third, the features are further selected through an embedded method, which selects features through simultaneous feature selection and classification. Finally, feature sets are optimized through 10-fold cross-validation. We collected real-world data through multiple sensors around the neck of five goats. The results show that activities can be accurately recognized using only accelerometer data and a few lightweight features. Additionally, we show that the performance is robust to sensor orientation and position. A simple Naive Bayes classifier using only a single feature achieved an accuracy of 94 % with our empirical dataset. Moreover, our optimal feature set yielded an average of 94 % accuracy when applied with six other classifiers. This work supports embedded, real-time, energy-efficient, and robust activity recognition for animals.

References

  1. Louis Atallah, Benny Lo, Rachel King, and Guang Zhong Yang. 2011. Sensor positioning for activity recognition using wearable accelerometers. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems 5, 4 (2011), 320--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jonghun Baek, GeehyukLee, Wonbae Park, and Bj Yun. 2004. Accelerometer signal processing for user activity detection. Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems Lecture No (2004), 610--617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jamali Firmat Banzi. 2014. A Sensor Based Anti-Poaching System in Tanzania. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 4, 4 (2014), 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ling Bao and Stephen S. Intille. 2004. Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data. In Pervasive Computing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Pablo Bermejo, José A. Gámez, and José M. Puerta. 2014. Speeding up incremental wrapper feature subset selection with Naive Bayes classifier. Knowledge-Based Systems 55 (2014), 140--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Owen R. Bidder, Hamish A. Campbell, Agustina Gómez-Laich, Patricia Urge, James Walker, Yuzhi Cai, Lianli Gao, Flavio Quintana, and Rory P. Wilson. 2014. Love thy neighbour: Automatic animal behavioural classification of acceleration data using the k-nearest neighbour algorithm. PLoS ONE 9, 2 (2014), 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Greg Bishop-Hurley, Dave Henry, Daniel Smith, Ritaban Dutta, James Hills, Richard Rawnsley, Andrew Hellicar, Greg Timms, Ahsan Morshed, Ashfaqur Rahman, Claire D'Este, and Yanfeng Shu. 2014. An investigation of cow feeding behavior using motion sensors. In 2014 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC) Proceedings. IEEE, 1285--1290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Steven J. Cooke, Scott G. Hinch, Martin Wikelski, Russel D. Andrews, Louise J. Kuchel, Thomas G. Wolcott, and Patrick J. Butler. 2004. Biotelemetry: A mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 6 (2004), 334--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ritaban Dutta, Daniel Smith, Richard Rawnsley, Greg Bishop-Hurley, James Hills, Greg Timms, and Dave Henry. 2015. Dynamic cattle behavioural classification using supervised ensemble classifiers. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 111 (2015), 18--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jochen Fahrenberg, Friedrich Foerster, Manfred Smeja, and Wolfgang Müller. 1997. Assessment of posture and motion by multichannel piezoresistive accelerometer recordings. (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Davide Figo, Pedro C. Diniz, Diogo R. Ferreira, and João M P Cardoso. 2010. Preprocessing techniques for context recognition from accelerometer data. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14, 7 (2010), 645--662. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Blanca Florentino-Liaño, Niamh O'Mahony, and Antonio Artés-Rodríguez. 2012. Human Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensors with Invariance to Sensor Orientation. In 2012 3rd International Workshop on Cognitive Information Processing (CIP). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. F Foerster and J Fahrenberg. 2000. Motion pattern and posture: correctly assessed by calibrated accelerometers. Behavior research methods, instruments, 8 computers: a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc 32, 3 (2000), 450--457.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. L A González, G J Bishop-hurley, R N Handcock, and C Crossman. 2015. Behavioral classification of data from collars containing motion sensors in grazing cattle. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 110 (2015), 91--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Isabelle Guyon and André Elisseeff. 2003. An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR)3, 3 (2003), 1157--1182. arXiv:1111.6189v1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Tâm Huynh and Bernt Schiele. 2005. Analyzing features for activity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2005 joint conference on Smart objects and ambient intelligence: innovative context-aware services: usages and technologies (sOc-EUSAI '05). 159--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. I Inza, P Larrañaga, R Etxeberria, and B Sierra. 1999. Feature subset selection by Bayesian networks based optimization. Artificial Intelligence 123 (1999), 157--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jacob Kamminga. 2017. Goat Orientation Data. online. (05 2017). http://ps.ewi.utwente.nl/Datasets.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dean M. Karantonis, Michael R. Narayanan, Merryn Mathie, Nigel H. Lovell, and Branko G. Celler. 2006. Implementation of a real-time human movement classifier using a triaxial accelerometer for ambulatory monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 10, 1 (2006), 156--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S B Kotsiantis. 2007. Supervised Machine Learning: A Review of Classification Techniques. Informatica, An International Journal of Computing and Informatics 3176, 31 (2007), 249--268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Cassim Ladha, Nils Hammerla, Emma Hughes, Patrick Olivier, and Thomas Ploetz. 2013. Dog's life: Wearable Activity Recognition for Dogs. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing - UbiComp '13. 415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jonathan Lester, Tanzeem Choudhury, and Gaetano Borriello. 2006. A Practical Approach to Recognizing Physical Activities. Pervasive Computing 3968 (2006), 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yunji Liang, Xingshe Zhou, Zhiwen Yu, Bin Guo, and Yue Yang. 2012. Energy efficient activity recognition based on low resolution accelerometer in smart phones. Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing (2012), 122--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jacques Marais, Solomon Petrus, Le Roux, Riaan Wolhuter, and Thomas Niesler. 2014. Automatic classification of sheep behaviour using 3-axis accelerometer data. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual symposium of the Pattern Recognition Association of South Africa (PRASA). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Paula Martiskainen, Mikko Järvinen, Jukka-Pekka Skön, Jarkko Tiirikainen, Mikko Kolehmainen, and Jaakko Mononen. 2009. Cow behaviour pattern recognition using a three-dimensional accelerometer and support vector machines. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 1--2 (2009), 32--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. B G Mathie, M. J., Coster, A. C., Lovell, N. H., 8 Celler. 2004. Accelerometry: providing an integrated, practical method for long-term, ambulatory monitoring of human movement. Physiological measurement 25, 2 (2004), R1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. MATLAB. 2015. version 8.6.0 (R2015b). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Uwe Maurer, Anthony Rowe, Asim Smailagic, and Daniel Siewiorek. 2006. Location and Activity Recognition Using eWatch: A Wearable Sensor Platform. Ambient Intelligence in Everyday Life 3864 (2006), 86--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. I Mierswa, M Wurst, R Klinkenberg, M Scholz, and T Euler. 2006. YALE: Rapid prototyping for complex data mining tasks. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2006 (2006), 935--940. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ran Nathan. 2008. An emerging movement ecology paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 49 (2008), 19050--19051.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ran Nathan, Orr Spiegel, Scott Fortmann-Roe, Roi Harel, Martin Wikelski, and Wayne M Getz. 2012. Using tri-axial acceleration data to identify behavioral modes of free-ranging animals: general concepts and tools illustrated for griffon vultures. The Journal of experimental biology 215, Pt 6 (2012), 986--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Trung Thanh Ngo, Yasushi Makihara, Hajime Nagahara, Yasuhiro Mukaigawa, and Yasushi Yagi. 2015. Similar gait action recognition using an inertial sensor. Pattern Recognition 48, 4 (2015), 1285--1297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Juha Pärkkä, Miikka Ermes, Panu Korpipää, Jani Mäntyjärvi, Johannes Peltola, and Ilkka Korhonen. 2006. Activity classification using realistic data from wearable sensors. IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine: a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 10, 1(2006), 119--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Julie K Petersen. 2002. Understanding Technologies Surveillance Spy Devices, Their Origins 8 Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. R. L. Plackett. 1983. Karl Pearson and the Chi-Squared Test. International Statistical Review /Revue Internationale de Statistique 51, 1 (1983), 59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. S.J. Preece, J.Y. Goulermas, L.P.J. Kenney, and D. Howard. 2009. A Comparison of Feature Extraction Methods for the Classification of Dynamic Activities From Accelerometer Data. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 56, 3 (2009), 871--879.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Nishkam Ravi, Nikhil Dandekar, Preetham Mysore, and Ml Michael L Littman. 2005. Activity Recognition from Accelerometer Data. In Aaai. 1541--1546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sasank Reddy, Min Mun, Jeff Burke, Deborah Estrin, Mark Hansen, and Mani Srivastava. 2010. Using mobile phones to determine transportation modes. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks 6, 2 (2010), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yasar Guneri Sahin. 2007. Animals as Mobile Biological Sensors for Forest Fire Detection. Sensors 7 (2007), 3084--3099.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jeff Schneider. 1997. Cross Validation. online. (1997). https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~schneide/tut5/node42.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Emily L C Shepard, Rory P. Wilson, Flavio Quintana, Agustina Gomez Laich, Nikolai Liebsch, Diego A. Albareda, Lewis G. Halsey, Adrian Gleiss, David T. Morgan, Andrew E. Myers, Chris Newman, and David W. Macdonald. 2010. Identification of animal movement patterns using tri-axial accelerometry. Endangered Species Research 10, 1 (2010), 47--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Muhammad Shoaib, Stephan Bosch, Ozlem Incel, Hans Scholten, and Paul Havinga. 2015. A Survey of Online Activity Recognition Using Mobile Phones. Sensors 15, 1 (2015), 2059--2085.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Pekka Siirtola and Juha Röning. 2012. Recognizing Human Activities User-independently on Smartphones Based on Accelerometer Data. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 1, 5 (2012), 38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Daniel Smith, Bryce Little, Paul I. Greenwood, Philip Valencia, Ashfaqur Rahman, Aaron Ingham, Greg Bishop-Hurley, Md Sumon Shahriar, and Andrew Hellicar. 2015. A study of sensor derived features in cattle behaviour classification models. In 2015 IEEE SENSORS -Proceedings. IEEE, Busan, South Korea, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Daniel Smith, Ashfaqur Rahman, Greg J. Bishop-Hurley, James Hills, Sumon Shahriar, David Henry, and Richard Rawnsley. 2016. Behavior classification of cows fitted with motion collars: Decomposing multi-class classification into a set of binary problems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 131 (2016), 40--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. J Sneddon and A Mason. 2014. Automated Monitoring of Foraging Behaviour in Free Ranging Sheep Grazing a Bio-diverse Pasture using Audio and Video Information. In 8th International Conference on Sensing Technology. 2--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Inertia Technology. 2017. ProMove mini. online. (2017). http://inertia-technology.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Jorge A. Vázquez Diosdado, Zoe E. Barker, Holly R. Hodges, Jonathan R. Amory, Darren P. Croft, Nick J. Bell, and Edward A. Codling. 2015. Classification of behaviour in housed dairy cows using an accelerometer-based activity monitoring system. Animal Biotelemetry 3, 1(2015), 15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. W3C. 2017. Motion Sensors Explainer. online. (08 2017). https://www.w3.org/TR/motion-sensors/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Shinichi Watanabe, Masako Izawa, Akiko Kato, Yan Ropert-Coudert, and Yasuhiko Naito. 2005. A new technique for monitoring the detailed behaviour of terrestrial animals: A case study with the domestic cat. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94, 1--2 (2005), 117--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Rory P. Wilson, E. L C Shepard, and N. Liebsch. 2008. Prying into the intimate details of animal lives: Use of a daily diary on animals. Endangered Species Research 4, 1--2(2008), 123--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Xiuxin Yang, A Dinh, and Li Chen. 2010. Implementation of a wearerable real-time system for physical activity recognition based on naive Bayes classifier. Bioinformatics and Biomedical Technology (ICBBT), 2010 International Conference on (2010), 101--105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. K. Yoda, Katsufumi Sato, Y. Niizuma, M. Kurita, Charles-André Bost, Yvon Le Maho, and Y. Naito. 1999. Precise monitoring of porpoising behaviour of Adélie penguins determined using acceleration data loggers. The Journal of experimental biology 202, Pt 22 (1999), 3121--3126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Mi Zhang and Alexander a Sawchuk. 2011. A feature selection-based framework for human activity recognition using wearable multimodal sensors. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Body Area Networks. 92--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Robust Sensor-Orientation-Independent Feature Selection for Animal Activity Recognition on Collar Tags

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
          Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 2, Issue 1
          March 2018
          1370 pages
          EISSN:2474-9567
          DOI:10.1145/3200905
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          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: 26 March 2018
          • Accepted: 1 January 2018
          • Revised: 1 November 2017
          • Received: 1 May 2017
          Published in imwut Volume 2, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader