Author Affiliations
1Key Laboratory of Wireless Sensor Network and Communication, Shanghai Institute of Microsystem and Information Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100864, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Overall flow chart of algorithm
Fig. 2. Architecture of SE block
Fig. 3. Architecture of human pose estimation
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of partial eigenvalue selection. (a) Some joints and joint angles; (b) body relative position vector
Fig. 5. Training samples (standing). (a) Walking in oblique direction; (b) backward walking; (c) lateral walking; (d) front standing
Fig. 6. Training sample (falling). (a) Front half fall; (b) side half fall; (c) lie; (d) prostration
Fig. 7. Training sample (sitting). (a) Sitting posture of left; (b) sitting posture of right
Fig. 8. Examples of pose estimation results. (a) Fall posture bone detection; (b) sitting posture bone detection; (c) standing posture bone detection; (d) coordinate distribution of 17 joints of standing posture of human body
Fig. 9. First subtree of XGBoost
Fig. 10. Test results of actual scene. (a) Half fall; (b) fall on one side
Fig. 11. Comparison of different algorithms. (a) Algorithm in this paper under the same posture; (b) poor posture detected in Ref. [10]
Item | Number of images |
---|
Image predicted as falling | 250 | Image predicted as standing | 263 | Image predicted as sitting | 237 | Image of actual falling | 250 | Image of actual standing | 250 | Image of actual sitting | 250 |
|
Table 1. Experimental results
Confusion matrix | Actual value | |
---|
Positive | Negative |
---|
Predictedvalue | Positive | ITP | IFP | | Negative | IFN | ITN |
|
Table 2. Confusion matrix
Index | For falling | For standing | For sitting |
---|
Accuracy | 0.983 | 0.983 | 0.983 | Precision | 1.000 | 0.951 | 1.000 | Recall | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.948 | F1 | 1.000 | 0.975 | 0.973 |
|
Table 3. Classification evaluation indexes
Algorithm | Accuracy |
---|
Method in Ref. [10] | 91.3 | Method in Ref. [11] | 93.0 | Method in Ref. [20]Method in Ref. [21] | 91.096.0 | RMPE+XGBoost (ours) | 98.3 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of results%