APCCAS 2008 - 2008 IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems 2008
DOI: 10.1109/apccas.2008.4745999
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gesture recognition based on 3D accelerometer for cell phones interaction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Algorithms for falling detection of these persons could be developed ( [7], or ideas from [8]). In this way, the usability of this system increases.…”
Section: ) Movement and Behavior Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Algorithms for falling detection of these persons could be developed ( [7], or ideas from [8]). In this way, the usability of this system increases.…”
Section: ) Movement and Behavior Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well established [32,33] that the extraction of frequency domain features (i.e., the power characteristics of the signal) improves performance. These are highly relevant in the classification of repetitive motion based on accelerometer data, as FFT detects periodic signals and splits them into their harmonic components, reducing the dimensionality of data.…”
Section: Data Preprocessing Feature Extraction and Trainingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Song et al used an SVM for hand shape classification that was combined with a particle filtering estimation framework for 3D body postures and an LDCRF for overall recognition [84]. Other 3D gesture recognizers that utilize SVMs include [80,[95][96][97][98][99][100][101].…”
Section: Hidden Markov Models Although Hidden Markovmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recognition approach Number of gestures Accuracy Pang and Ding [58] HMMs with kinematic features 12 91.2% Wan et al [60] HMMs with sparse coding 4 94.2% Lee and Cho [61] Hierarchical HMMs 3 Approx. 80.0% Whitehead and Fox [68] Standard HMMs 7 91.4% Nguyen et al [66] Two-stage HMMs 10 95.3% Chen et al [63] HMMs with Fourier descriptors 20 93.5% Pylvänäinen [67] HMMs without rotation data 10 99.76% Chung and Yang [71] Threshold CRF 12 91.9% Yang et al [72] Two-layer CRF 48 93.5% Yang and Lee [73] HCRF with BoostMap embedding 24 87.3% Song et al [78] HCRF with temporal smoothing 10 93.7% Liu and Jia [80] HCRF with manifold learning 10 97.8% Elmezain and Al-Hamadi [83] LDCRF with depth camera 36 96.1% Song et al [84] LDCRF with filtering framework 24 75.4% Zhang et al [85] Fuzzy LDCRF 5 91.8% Huang et al [88] SVM with Gabor filters 11 95.2% Hsieh et al [89] SVM with Fourier descriptors 5 93.4% Hsieh and Liou [90] SVM with Haar features 4 95.6% Dardas and Georganas [92] SVM with bag of words 10 96.2% Chen and Tseng [93] Fusing multiple SVMs 3 93.3% Rashid et al [94] Combining SVM with HMM 18 98.0% Yun and Peng [101] Hu moments with SVM 3 96.2% Ren and Zhang [99] SVM with min enclosing ball 10 92.9% Wu et al [100] Frame-based descriptor with SVM 12 95.2% He et al [96] SVM with Wavelet and FFT 17 87.4% Nisar et al [104] Decision trees 26 95.0% Jeon et al [105] Multivariate fuzzy decision trees 10 90.6% Zhang et al [106] Decision trees fused with HMMs 72 96.3% Fang et al [107] Hierarchical Decision trees 14 91.6% Miranda et al [109] Decision forest with key pose learning 10 91.5% Keskin et al [41] Decision forest with SVM 10 99.9% Keskin et al [110] Shape classification forest 24 97.8% Negin et al…”
Section: Authormentioning
confidence: 99%