Abstract
Mobile devices are becoming pervasive to our daily lives: they follow us everywhere and we use them for much more than just communication. These devices are also equipped with a myriad of different sensors that have the potential to allow the tracking of human activities, user patterns, location, direction and much more. Following this direction, many movements including sports, quantified self, and mobile health ones are starting to heavily rely on this technology, making it pivotal that the sensors offer high accuracy.
However, heterogeneity in hardware manufacturing, slight substrate differences, electronic interference as well as external disturbances are just few of the reasons that limit sensor output accuracy which in turn hinders sensor usage in applications which need very high granularity and precision, such as quantified-self applications. Although, calibration of sensors is a widely studied topic in literature to the best of our knowledge no publicly available research exists that specifically tackles the calibration of mobile phones and existing methods that can be adapted for use in mobile devices not only require user interaction but they are also not adaptive to changes. Additionally, alternative approaches for performing more granular and accurate sensing exploit body-wide sensor networks using mobile phones and additional sensors; as one can imagine these techniques can be bulky, tedious, and not particularly user friendly. Moreover, existing techniques for performing data corrections post-acquisition can produce inconsistent results as they miss important context information provided from the device itself; which when used, has been shown to produce better results without a imposing a significant power-penalty.
In this paper we introduce a novel multiposition calibration scheme that is specifically targeted at mobile devices Our scheme exploits machine learning techniques to perform an adaptive, power-efficient auto-calibration procedure with which achieves high output sensor accuracy when compared to state of the art techniques without requiring any user interaction or special equipment beyond device itself Moreover, the energy costs associated with our approach are lower than the alternatives (such as Kalman filter based solutions) and the overall power penalty is < 5% when compared against power usage that is exhibited when using uncalibrated traces, thus, enabling our technique to be used efficiently on a wide variety of devices Finally, our evaluation illustrates that calibrated signals offer a tangible benefit in classification accuracy, ranging from 3 to 10%, over uncalibrated ones when using state of the art classifiers, on the other hand when using simpler SVM classifiers the classification improvement is boosted ranging from 8% to 12% making lower performing classifiers much more reliable Additionally, we show that for similar activities which are hard to distinguish otherwise, we reach an accuracy of > 95% when using neural network classifiers and > 88% when using SVM classifiers where uncalibrated data classification only reaches ~ 85% and ~ 80% respectively This can be a make or break factor in the use of accelerometer and gyroscope data in applications requiring high accuracy e g sports, health, games and others
- Brochure for analog devices tactical grade IMU. http://www.analog.com/media/en/news-marketing-collateral/product-highlight/Tactical-Grade-IMU.PDF. Accessed: 10-04-2017.Google Scholar
- P Aggarwal, Z Syed, X Niu, and N El-Sheimy. A standard testing and calibration procedure for low cost mems inertial sensors and units. The Journal of Navigation, 61(2):323--336, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tadej Beravs, Janez Podobnik, and Marko Munih. Three-axial accelerometer calibration using kalman filter covariance matrix for online estimation of optimal sensor orientation. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 61(9):2501--2511, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hristo Bojinov, Yan Michalevsky, Gabi Nakibly, and Dan Boneh. Mobile device identification via sensor fingerprinting. arXiv preprint arXiv.1408.1416, 2014.Google Scholar
- Francois Caron, Emmanuel Duflos, Denis Pomorski, and Philippe Vanheeghe. Gps/imu data fusion using multisensor kalman filtering: introduction of contextual aspects. Information fusion, 7(2):221--230, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ronan Collobert and Jason Weston. A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 160--167. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanorita Dey, Nirupam Roy, Wenyuan Xu, Romit Roy Choudhury, and Srihari Nelakuditi. Accelprint: Imperfections of accelerometers make smartphones trackable. In NDSS, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mian Dong and Lin Zhong. Self-constructive high-rate system energy modeling for battery-powered mobile systems. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Mobile systems, applications, and services, pages 335--348. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammed El-Diasty and Spiros Pagiatakis. Calibration and stochastic modelling of inertial navigation sensor errors. Journal of Global Positioning Systems, 7(2):170--182, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Naser El-Sheimy, Haiying Hou, and Xiaoji Niu. Analysis and modeling of inertial sensors using allan variance. IEEE Transactions on instrumentation and measurement, 57(1):140--149, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Franco Ferraris, Ugo Grimaldi, and Marco Parvis. Procedure for effortless in-field calibration of three-axial rate gyro and accelerometers. Sensors and Materials, 7(5):311--330, 1995.Google Scholar
- WT Fong, SK Ong, and AYC Nee. Methods for in-field user calibration of an inertial measurement unit without external equipment. Measurement Science and technology, 19(8):085202, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iuri Frosio, Federico Pedersini, and N Alberto Borghese. Autocalibration of mems accelerometers. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 58(6):2034--2041, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Geoffrey Hinton, Li Deng, Dong Yu, George E Dahl, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, Navdeep Jaitly, Andrew Senior, Vincent Vanhoucke, Patrick Nguyen, Tara N Sainath, et al. Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6):82--97, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William J Hinze, Ralph RB Von Frese, and Afif H Saad. Gravity and magnetic exploration: Principles, practices, and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher Jekeli. Inertial navigation systems with geodetic applications. Walter de Gruyter, 2001.Google Scholar
- Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1097--1105, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steve Lawrence, C Lee Giles, and Ah Chung Tsoi. Lessons in neural network training: Overfitting may be harder than expected. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 540--545, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yi Liu and Yuan F Zheng. One-against-all multi-class svm classification using reliability measures. In Neural Networks, 2005. IJCNN'05. Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on, volume 2, pages 849--854. IEEE, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joost Conrad Lötters, J Schipper, PH Veltink, W Olthuis, and P Bergveld. Procedure for in-use calibration of triaxial accelerometers in medical applications. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 68(1-3):221--228, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hong Lu, Jun Yang, Zhigang Liu, Nicholas D Lane, Tanzeem Choudhury, and Andrew T Campbell. The jigsaw continuous sensing engine for mobile phone applications. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems, pages 71--84. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaj Madsen, Hans Bruun Nielsen, and Ole Tingleff. Methods for non-linear least squares problems. 2004.Google Scholar
- Andrea Mannini, Stephen S Intille, Mary Rosenberger, Angelo M Sabatini, and William Haskell. Activity recognition using a single accelerometer placed at the wrist or ankle. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 45(11):2193, 2013.Google Scholar
- J Metge, R Mégret, A Giremus, Y Berthoumieu, and T Décamps. Calibration of an inertial-magnetic measurement unit without external equipment, in the presence of dynamic magnetic disturbances. Measurement Science and Technology, 25(12): 125106, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yan Michalevsky, Dan Boneh, and Gabi Nakibly. Gyrophone: Recognizing speech from gyroscope signals. In USENIX Security, pages 1053--1067,2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T Mineta, S Kobayashi, Y Watanabe, S Kanauchi, I Nakagawa, E Suganuma, and M Esashi. Three-axis capacitive accelerometer with uniform axial sensitivities. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 6(4):431, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Faraz M Mirzaei and Stergios I Roumeliotis. A kalman filter-based algorithm for imu-camera calibration: Observability analysis and performance evaluation. IEEE transactions on robotics, 24(5): 1143--1156, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Howard Musoff and Jerold P Gilmore. Inertial navigation system with automatic redundancy and dynamic compensation of gyroscope drift error, March 16 1993. US Patent 5,194,872.Google Scholar
- K Nirmal, AG Sreejith, Joice Mathew, Mayuresh Sarpotdar, Ambily Suresh, Ajin Prakash, Margarita Safonova, and Jayant Murthy. Noise modeling and analysis of an imu-based attitude sensor: improvement of performance by filtering and sensor fusion. In SPIE Astronomical Telescopes+ Instrumentation, pages 99126W--99126W. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2016.Google Scholar
- Shashi Poddar, Vipan Kumar, and Amod Kumar. A comprehensive overview of inertial sensor calibration techniques. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 139(1):011006, 2017.Google Scholar
- Vijay Raghunathan, Curt Schurgers, Sung Park, and Mani B Srivastava. Energy-aware wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Signal processing magazine, 19(2):40--50, 2002.Google Scholar
- Ryan Rifkin and Aldebaro Klautau. In defense of one-vs-all classification. Journal of machine learning research, 5(Jan):101--141, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saiful Bahri Samsuri, Hairi Zamzuri, Mohd Azizi Abdul Rahman, Saiful Amri Mazlan, and Abdul Hadi Abd Rahman. Computational cost analysis of extended kalman filter in simultaneous localization and mapping (ekf-slam) problem for autonomous vehicle. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(17):153--158, 2015.Google Scholar
- Isaac Skog and Peter Handel. Calibration of a mems inertial measurement unit. In XVII IMEKO World Congress, pages 1--6, 2006.Google Scholar
- Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey E Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfiltting. Journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929--1958, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Allan Stisen, Henrik Blunck, Sourav Bhattacharya, Thor Siiger Prentow, Mikkel Baun Kjærgaard, Anind Dey, Tobias Sonne, and Mads Møller Jensen. Smart devices are different: Assessing and mitigatingmobile sensing heterogeneities for activity recognition. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pages 127--140. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Salah Sukkarieh, Eduardo Mario Nebot, and Hugh F Durrant-Whyte. A high integrity imu/gps navigation loop for autonomous land vehicle applications. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 15(3):572--578, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ZF Syed, P Aggarwal, C Goodall, X Niu, and N El-Sheimy. A new multi-position calibration method for mems inertial navigation systems. Measurement Science and Technology, 18(7):1897, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhou Wang and Alan C Bovik. Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? a new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE signal processing magazine, 26(1):98--117, 2009.Google Scholar
- Martin L Wilson. Recommended calibration interval. 2010.Google Scholar
- Seong-hoon Peter Won and Farid Golnaraghi. A triaxial accelerometer calibration method using a mathematical model. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 59(8):2144--2153, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pifu Zhang, Jason Gu, Evangelos E Milios, and Peter Huynh. Navigation with imu/gps/digital compass with unscented kalman filter. In Mechatronics and Automation, 2005 IEEE International Conference, volume 3, pages 1497--1502. IEEE, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- You Are Sensing, but Are You Biased?: A User Unaided Sensor Calibration Approach for Mobile Sensing
Recommendations
Camera phone based motion sensing: interaction techniques, applications and performance study
UIST '06: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technologyThis paper presents TinyMotion, a pure software approach for detecting a mobile phone user's hand movement in real time by analyzing image sequences captured by the built-in camera. We present the design and implementation of TinyMotion and several ...
Sensing foot gestures from the pocket
UIST '10: Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technologyVisually demanding interfaces on a mobile phone can diminish the user experience by monopolizing the user's attention when they are focusing on another task and impede accessibility for visually impaired users. Because mobile devices are often located ...
Calibration as parameter estimation in sensor networks
WSNA '02: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applicationsWe describe an ad-hoc localization system for sensor networks and explain why traditional calibration methods are inadequate for this system. Building upon previous work, we frame calibration as a parameter estimation problem; we parameterize each ...
Comments