Human Activity Recognition Methods: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by zhou haiyang.

Human activity recognition (HAR) can effectively improve the safety of the elderly at home. Many researchers have studied HAR from different aspects, such as sensors and algorithms. HAR methods can be divided into three categories based on the types of sensors: wearable devices, cameras, and millimeter-wave radars.

  • human activity recognition
  • small-scale datasets
  • PCA

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization reports that 42% of people over 70 might fall at least once a year [1]. By 2050, the proportion of the world’s population aged over 65 is expected to increase to 21.64% [2]. As the world’s most populous country, China has accelerated its urbanization process in recent years and its original family structure has changed. A large number of empty nesters have appeared in both urban and rural areas of the country. Empty nesters are vulnerable to safety hazards at home due to old age and limited mobility. Especially for those empty nesters living alone, an unexpected fall can result in death in the worst-case scenario. Research shows that timely help can save the lives of those who fall [3]. However, existing medical resources are infeasible to meet the massive demand for elderly home care due to the significant number of older adults. In this circumstance, various sensors and technologies have been applied to monitor and recognize the activities of the elderly at home to improve their home safety through technical means. Among these technologies, human activity recognition (HAR) is a key technology for home safety monitoring of the elderly. Although HAR is promising, it still faces many challenges. For example, its recognition accuracy is unsatisfactory and not convenient enough for users [4].

2. Human Activity Recognition Methods

Many researchers have studied HAR from different aspects, such as sensors and algorithms. HAR methods can be divided into the following three categories based on the types of sensors: wearable devices, cameras, and millimeter-wave radars. The advantages and disadvantages of different sensors are shown in Table 1. In addition to the reasons listed in the table, cost is also an important and realistic factor influencing users’ choice. For example, the camera-based method is usually cheaper than the millimeter-wave radar-based method, but the millimeter-wave radar-based method can better protect user privacy. The cost of a wearable device is usually more than the cost of a single camera, but users may need multiple cameras to monitor different rooms while one wearable device can fulfill a user’s needs. Therefore, in the se-lection of monitoring methods, it is often necessary to consider the actual situation and needs of users.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of different sensors.
HAR based on cameras has been popular in the past. Some researchers separated the image background from the human and then used machine learning or deep learning to extract features [5,6][5][6]. Espinosa et al. [7] separated the person in the picture from the background and extracted the ratio of length to width of the human body to recognize standing and falling. In addition, some researchers extracted human contour features and recognized activities through changes in contour [8,9,10][8][9][10]. Rougier et al. [11] used an ellipse rather than a bounding box on HAR. They suggested that the direction standard deviation and ratio standard deviation of the ellipse can better recognize the fall. Meanwhile, Lai et al. [12] improved this method by extracting the picture’s features and using three points to represent people instead of using the bounding box. In this way, the changed information of the upper and lower parts of the human body can be easily analyzed. With the development of computer technology and deep learning, Nunez-Marcos et al. [13] proposed an approach that used convolutional neural networks (CNN) to recognize the activities in a video sequence. Khraief et al. [14] used four independent CNNs to obtain multiple types of data and then combined the data with 4D-CNN for HAR. Compared with other methods, visual methods have better recognition accuracy and robustness, but the performance of cameras will decline rapidly in the dark environment. Having the camera based in certain places, such as bedrooms and bathrooms, will significantly violate personal privacy and bring moral and legal problems [15]. As a result, the usage of traditional cameras as sensors for HAR has been abandoned in recent years. Although researchers including Xu and Zhou [16] have promoted 3D cameras, they have a limit on the use distance and can only be used within 0.4–3 m, which is not suitable for daily use.
Wearable devices are also widely used for HAR, based on the principle that acceleration changes rapidly when the human body moves. There are many methods to measure the change of acceleration, such as accelerometer [17[17][18],18], barometer [17], gyroscope [19[19][20],20], and other sensors. In 2009, Le et al. [21] designed a fall recognition system with wearable and acceleration sensors to meet the needs of comprehensive care for the elderly. In 2015, Pierleoni et al. [22] designed an algorithm to analyze the tri-axial accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer data features. The results showed that the method had a better performance on the recognition of falls than similar methods. In 2018, Mao et al. [23] extracted information and direction by combining different sensors, and then used thresholds and machine learning to recognize falls with 91.1% accuracy. Unlike visual methods, wearable devices pay more attention to privacy protection and will not be disturbed in a dark environment. However, wearable devices need to be worn, which reduces comfort and usability and is challenging to apply to older adults. In addition, the limitations of the battery capacity of wearable devices makes it difficult for them to work for an extended period. To address these disadvantages, Tsinganos and Skodras [24] used sensors in smartphones for HAR. However, this method still has some limitations for the elderly who are either not familiar with or do not have smartphones.
With the development of radar sensors, there has been an emergence of HAR using millimeter-wave radar data [25]. Compared with other methods, radar data can better protect personal privacy and is more comfortable for users. The key to using radar to recognize human activities is to extract and identify the features of the micro-Doppler signal generated when the elderly move. In 2011, Liu et al. [26] extracted time–frequency features of activities through the mel frequency cepstrum coefficient (MFCC) and used support vector machine (SVM) and k-nearest neighbor (KNN) to recognize activities with 78.25% accuracy for SVM and 77.15% accuracy for KNN. However, the limit of supervised learning is that it can only extract features artificially and cannot transfer learning. Deep learning does not require complex feature extraction and has good learning and recognition ability for high-dimensional data. Sadreazami et al. [27] and Tsuchiyama et al. [28] used distance spectrums and time series of radar data combined with CNN for HAR. In 2020, Bhattacharya and Vaughan [29] used spectrograms as input of CNN to distinguish falling and non-falling. In the same year, Maitre et al. [30] and Erol et al. [31] used multiple radar sensors for HAR to solve the problem that a single radar sensor could only be used in a small range. Hochreiter et al. [32] proposed a long short-term memory network (LSTM)) to solve the problem of gradient vanishing and gradient explosion. Wang et al. [33] used an improved LSTM model based on a recurrent neutral network (RNN) combined with deep CNN. Their work recognized radar Doppler images of six human activities with an accuracy of 82.33%. Garcia et al. [34] also used the CNN-LSTM model to recognize human activities. The authors proposed an approach to collect data on volunteer activity by placing a non-invasive tri-axial accelerometer device. Their innovation lies in two aspects: they used LSTM to classify time series and they proposed a new data enhancement method. The results show that their model is more robust. Bouchard et al. [35] used IR-UWB radar combined with CNN for binary classification to recognize falling and normal activities with an accuracy of 96.35%. Cao et al. [36] applied a five-layer convolutional neural network AlexNet with fewer layers on HAR. They believed that features could be better extracted by using fewer convolution layers.
Although deep learning has a strong learning ability and high accuracy in HAR, it needs a large volume of data for training purposes. Due to the particularity of the elderly, it is difficult for them to generate some high-risk activities for data collection.


  1. De Miguel, K.; Brunete, A.; Hernando, M.; Gambao, E. Home Camera-Based Fall Detection System for the Elderly. Sensors 2017, 17, 2864.
  2. Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) Steering Group. Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Hip Fracture Care: Improving Outcomes in Hip Fracture Management of Adults. Sydney: Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry Steering Group. New Zealand, Falls in People Aged 50 and Over. 2018. Available online: (accessed on 5 September 2019).
  3. Mubashir, M.; Shao, L.; Seed, L. A survey on fall detection: Principles and approaches. Neurocomputing 2013, 100, 144–152.
  4. Daher, M.; Diab, A.; El Badaoui El Najjar, M.; Ali Khalil, M.; Charpillet, F. Elder Tracking and Fall Detection System Using Smart Tiles. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 469–479.
  5. Alonso, M.; Brunete, A.; Hernando, M.; Gambao, E. Background-Subtraction Algorithm Optimization for Home Camera-Based Night-Vision Fall Detectors. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 152399–152411.
  6. Fan, K.; Wang, P.; Zhuang, S. Human fall detection using slow feature analysis. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2019, 78, 9101–9128.
  7. Espinosa, R.; Ponce, H.; Gutiérrez, S.; Martínez-Villaseñor, L.; Brieva, J.; Moya-Albor, E. A vision-based approach for fall detection using multiple cameras and convolutional neural networks: A case study using the UP-Fall detection dataset. Comput. Biol. Med. 2019, 115, 103520.
  8. Rougier, C.; Meunier, J.; St-Arnaud, A.; Rousseau, J. Robust Video Surveillance for Fall Detection Based on Human Shape Deformation. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 2011, 21, 611–622.
  9. Lotfi, A.; Albawendi, S.; Powell, H.; Appiah, K.; Langensiepen, C. Supporting Independent Living for Older Adults; Employing a Visual Based Fall Detection Through Analysing the Motion and Shape of the Human Body. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 70272–70282.
  10. Albawendi, S.; Lotfi, A.; Powell, H.; Appiah, K. Video Based Fall Detection using Features of Motion, Shape and Histogram. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA), Corfu, Greece, 26–29 June 2018.
  11. Rougier, C.; Meunier, J.; Arnaud, A.; Rousseau, J. Fall Detection from Human Shape and Motion History Using Video Surveillance. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW07), Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 21–23 May 2007; Volume 2, pp. 875–880.
  12. Lai, C.-F.; Chang, S.-Y.; Chao, H.-C.; Huang, Y.-M. Detection of Cognitive Injured Body Region Using Multiple Triaxial Accelerometers for Elderly Falling. IEEE Sens. J. 2011, 11, 763–770.
  13. Núñez-Marcos, A.; Azkune, G.; Arganda-Carreras, I. Vision-Based Fall Detection with Convolutional Neural Networks. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2017, 2017, 9474806.
  14. Khraief, C.; Benzarti, F.; Amiri, H. Elderly fall detection based on multi-stream deep convolutional networks. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2020, 79, 19537–19560.
  15. Igual, R.; Medrano, C.; Plaza, I. Challenges, issues and trends in fall detection systems. Biomed. Eng. Online 2013, 12, 24–66.
  16. Xu, T.; Zhou, Y. Elders’ fall detection based on biomechanical features using depth camera. Int. J. Wavelets Multiresolut. Inf. Process. 2018, 16, 1840005.
  17. Bianchi, F.; Redmond, S.J.; Narayanan, M.R.; Cerutti, S.; Lovell, N.H. Barometric Pressure and Triaxial Accelerometry-Based Falls Event Detection. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2010, 18, 619–627.
  18. Bourke, A.; O’Brien, J.; Lyons, G. Evaluation of a threshold-based tri-axial accelerometer fall detection algorithm. Gait Posture 2007, 26, 194–199.
  19. Li, Q.; Zhou, G.; Stankovic, J.A. Accurate, Fast Fall Detection Using Posture and Context Information. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, Raleigh, NC, USA, 5–7 November 2008.
  20. Nyan, M.; Tay, F.E.; Murugasu, E. A wearable system for pre-impact fall detection. J. Biomech. 2008, 41, 3475–3481.
  21. Le, T.M.; Pan, R. Accelerometer-based sensor network for fall detection. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference, Beijing, China, 26–28 November 2009.
  22. Pierleoni, P.; Belli, A.; Palma, L.; Pellegrini, M.; Pernini, L.; Valenti, S. A High Reliability Wearable Device for Elderly Fall Detection. IEEE Sens. J. 2015, 15, 4544–4553.
  23. Mao, A.; Ma, X.; He, Y.; Luo, J. Highly Portable, Sensor-Based System for Human Fall Monitoring. Sensors 2017, 17, 2096.
  24. Tsinganos, P.; Skodras, A. A Smartphone-based Fall Detection System for the Elderly. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 18–20 September 2017.
  25. Grossi, G.; Lanzarotti, R.; Napoletano, P.; Noceti, N.; Odone, F. Positive technology for elderly well-being: A review. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2020, 137, 61–70.
  26. Liu, L.; Popescu, M.; Skubic, M.; Rantz, M. An Automatic Fall Detection Framework Using Data Fusion of Doppler Radar and Motion Sensor Network. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE-Engineering-in-Medicine-and-Biology-Society (EMBC), Chicago, IL, USA, 26–30 August 2014.
  27. Sadreazami, H.; Bolic, M.; Rajan, S. Fall Detection Using Standoff Radar-Based Sensing and Deep Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II: Express Briefs 2020, 67, 197–201.
  28. Tsuchiyama, K.; Kajiwara, A. Accident detection and health-monitoring UWB sensor in toilet. In Proceedings of the IEEE Topical Conference on Wireless Sensors and Sensor Networks (WiSNet), Orlando, FL, USA, 20–23 January 2019.
  29. Bhattacharya, A.; Vaughan, R. Deep Learning Radar Design for Breathing and Fall Detection. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 20, 5072–5085.
  30. Maitre, J.; Bouchard, K.; Gaboury, S. Fall Detection with UWB Radars and CNN-LSTM Architecture. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2021, 25, 1273–1283.
  31. Erol, B.; Amin, M.G.; Boashash, B. Range-Doppler radar sensor fusion for fall detection. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf), Seattle, WA, USA, 8–12 May 2017.
  32. Hochreiter, S.; Obermayer, K. Optimal gradient-based learning using importance weights. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN 2005), Montreal, QC, Canada, 31 July–4 August 2005.
  33. Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.D.; Cui, G. Human motion recognition exploiting radar with stacked recurrent neural network. Digit. Signal Process. 2019, 87, 125–131.
  34. García, E.; Villar, M.; Fáñez, M.; Villar, J.R.; de la Cal, E.; Cho, S.-B. Towards effective detection of elderly falls with CNN-LSTM neural networks. Neurocomputing 2022, 500, 231–240.
  35. Bouchard, K.; Maitre, J.; Bertuglia, C.; Gaboury, S. Activity Recognition in Smart Homes using UWB Radars. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT)/3rd International Conference on Emerging Data and Industry 4.0 (EDI), Warsaw, Poland, 6–9 April 2020.
  36. Cao, P.; Xia, W.; Ye, M.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, J. Radar-ID: Human identification based on radar micro-Doppler signatures using deep convolutional neural networks. IET Radar Sonar Navig. 2018, 12, 729–734.