skip to main content
research-article

You Are Sensing, but Are You Biased?: A User Unaided Sensor Calibration Approach for Mobile Sensing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 March 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hristo Bojinov, Yan Michalevsky, Gabi Nakibly, and Dan Boneh. Mobile device identification via sensor fingerprinting. arXiv preprint arXiv.1408.1416, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Sanorita Dey, Nirupam Roy, Wenyuan Xu, Romit Roy Choudhury, and Srihari Nelakuditi. Accelprint: Imperfections of accelerometers make smartphones trackable. In NDSS, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Iuri Frosio, Federico Pedersini, and N Alberto Borghese. Autocalibration of mems accelerometers. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 58(6):2034--2041, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. William J Hinze, Ralph RB Von Frese, and Afif H Saad. Gravity and magnetic exploration: Principles, practices, and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Christopher Jekeli. Inertial navigation systems with geodetic applications. Walter de Gruyter, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kaj Madsen, Hans Bruun Nielsen, and Ole Tingleff. Methods for non-linear least squares problems. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Yan Michalevsky, Dan Boneh, and Gabi Nakibly. Gyrophone: Recognizing speech from gyroscope signals. In USENIX Security, pages 1053--1067,2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan Rifkin and Aldebaro Klautau. In defense of one-vs-all classification. Journal of machine learning research, 5(Jan):101--141, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Isaac Skog and Peter Handel. Calibration of a mems inertial measurement unit. In XVII IMEKO World Congress, pages 1--6, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin L Wilson. Recommended calibration interval. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. You Are Sensing, but Are You Biased?: A User Unaided Sensor Calibration Approach for Mobile Sensing

      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 August 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