Advertisement

A Platform for Assessing Physical Education Activity Engagement

  • Rafael de Pinho AndréEmail author
  • Alberto Barbosa Raposo
  • Hugo Fuks
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)

Abstract

Physical activity is an important part of the healthy development of children, improving physical, social and emotional health. One of the main challenges faced by physical educators is the assembling of a physical education program that is compelling to all individuals in a diverse group. Recent advances in Human Activity Recognition (HAR) methods and wearable technologies allow for accurate monitoring of activity levels and engagement in physical activities. In this work, we present a platform for assessing the engagement of participants in physical education activities, based on a wearable IoT device, a machine learning HAR classifier and a comprehensive experiment involving 14 diverse volunteers that resulted in about 1 million data samples. Targeting at a replicable research, we provide full hardware information and system source code.

Keywords

Physical education Human Activity Recognition Wearable computing and wearable sensing Healthcare systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Kohl III, H.W., Cook, H.D.: Educating the student body: taking physical activity and physical education to school. In: Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education, Institute of Medicine, pp. 199–199. National Academies Press (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rasberry, C.N., et al.: The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. In: Preventive Medicine, pp. 10–20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bevans, K.B., et al.: Physical education resources, class management, and student physical activity levels. J. Sch. Health 80, 573–580 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlson, S.A., et al.: Physical education and academic achievement in elementary school. Am. J. Public Health 98, 721–727 (2008). American Public Health AssociationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sollerhed, A.C.: Young today – adult tomorrow! Ph.D. thesis, Lund University, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tester, G., et al.: A 30-year journey of monitoring fitness and skill outcomes in physical education. Published online at Scientific Research, 7 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morgan, P., Hansen, V.: Classroom teachers’ perceptions of the impact of barriers to teaching physical education on the quality of physical education programs. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 79, 506–516 (2008). National Institutes of HealthCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Santis, A., et al.: A simple object for elderly vitality monitoring. In: Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), ASME, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drobny, D., et al.: Saltate!: a sensor-based system to support dance beginners. In: CHI 2009 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3943–3948. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doppler, J., et al.: Variability in foot-worn sensor placement for activity recognition. In: International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 2009. ISWC 2009, pp. 143–144. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghobadi, M., Esfahani, E.T.: Foot-mounted inertial measurement unit for activity classification. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC, pp. 6294–6297. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang, W., Sazonov, E.S.: Highly accurate recognition of human postures and activities through classification with rejection. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 18(1), 309–315 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sazonov, E.S., et al.: Monitoring of posture allocations and activities by a shoe-based wearable sensor. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58(4), 983–990 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin, F., et al.: Smart insole: a wearable sensor device for unobtrusive gait monitoring in daily life. Trans. Ind. Inform. 12(6), 2281–2291 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang, X., et al.: AIR: recognizing activity through IR based distance sensing on feet. In: International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct, pp. 97–100. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haescher, M., et al.: CapWalk: a capacitive recognition of walking-based activities as a wearable assistive technology. In: International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, p. 35. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matthies, D.J.C., et al.: CapSoles: who is walking on what kind of floor? In: Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhu, C., Sheng, W.: Multi-sensor fusion for human daily activity recognition in robot-assisted living. In International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 303–304. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin, F., et al.: Sensing from the bottom: smart insole enabled patient handling activity recognition through manifold learning. In: Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE), pp. 254–263. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, T., et al.: Using decision trees to measure activities in people with stroke. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 6337–6340. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edgar, S.R., et al.: Wearable shoe-based device for rehabilitation of stroke patients. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 3772–3775. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noshadi, H., et al.: HERMES: mobile system for instability analysis and balance assessment. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 12:57 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Au, L.K. et al.: MicroLEAP: energy-aware wireless sensor platform for biomedical sensing applications. In: Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference. BIOCAS, pp. 158–162. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hegde, N., Sazonov, E.: Smartstep: a fully integrated, low-power insole monitor. Electronics 3(2), 381–397 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hegde, N., et al.: Development of a real time activity monitoring android application utilizing smartstep. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 1886–1889. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sazonov, E., et al.: Posture and activity recognition and energy expenditure estimation in a wearable platform. IEEE J. Biomed. Inform. 19, 1339–1346 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sazonova, N., et al.: Accurate prediction of energy expenditure using a shoe-based activity monitor. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 43(7), 1312–1321 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sazonova, N.A., et al.: Prediction of bodyweight and energy expenditure using point pressure and foot acceleration measurements. Open Biomed. Eng. J. 5, 110 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fulk, G.D., Sazonov, E.: Using sensors to measure activity in people with stroke. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 18(6), 746–757 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fulk, G.D., et al.: Identifying activity levels and steps in people with stroke using a novel shoe-based sensor. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 36(2), 100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Pinho André, R., et al.: Bottom-up investigation: human activity recognition based on feet movement and posture information. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Sensor-based Activity Recognition and Interaction, pp. 10:1–10:6 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael de Pinho André
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alberto Barbosa Raposo
    • 1
  • Hugo Fuks
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations