Article

An Intelligent Non-Invasive Real Time Human Activity

Recognition System for Next-Generation Healthcare
William Taylor 1 *, Syed Aziz Shah 2, 1 , Kia Dashtipour 1, , Adnan Zahid 1, , Qammer H. Abbasi 1 and
Muhammad Ali Imran 1
1 James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,G12 8QQ, U.K;
arXiv:2008.02567v1 [eess.SP] 6 Aug 2020

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
[email protected]
2 School of Computing and Mathematics, Manchester Metropolitan University U.K; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (W.T.)

Received: 13 April 2020; Accepted: 29 April 2020; Published: 6 May 2020

Abstract: Human motion detection is getting considerable attention in the field of Artificial Intelligence
(AI) driven healthcare systems. Human motion can be used to provide remote healthcare solutions
for vulnerable people by identifying particular movements such as falls, gait and breathing disorders.
This can allow people to live more independent lifestyles and still have the safety of being monitored if
more direct care is needed. At present wearable devices can provide real time monitoring by deploying
equipment on a person’s body. However, putting devices on a person’s body all the time make it
uncomfortable and the elderly tends to forget it to wear as well in addition to the insecurity of being
tracked all the time. This paper demonstrates how human motions can be detected in quasi-real-time
scenario using a non-invasive method. Patterns in the wireless signals presents particular human body
motions as each movement induces a unique change in the wireless medium. These changes can be
used to identify particular body motions. This work produces a dataset that contains patterns of radio
wave signals obtained using software defined radios (SDRs) to establish if a subject is standing up or
sitting down as a test case. The dataset was used to create a machine learning model, which was used
in a developed application to provide a quasi-real-time classification of standing or sitting state. The
machine learning model was able to achieve 96.70 % accuracy using the Random Forest algorithm using
10 fold cross validation. A benchmark dataset of wearable devices was compared to the proposed dataset
and results showed the proposed dataset to have similar accuracy of nearly 90 %. The machine learning
models developed in this paper are tested for two activities but the developed system is designed and
applicable for detecting and differentiating x number of activities.

Keywords: Human Motion Detection, Machine Learning, Random Forest, KNN, SVM, Neural Networks,
USRP, Channel State Information, Real Time Classification

1. Introduction
Human motion detection is an important area of research in the field of healthcare systems. Eventually,
more and more sectors of the healthcare industry will begin to use technology [1,2]. In recent years, home
healthcare through the use of different technologies has gained much attention from its ability to improve
the lives of people who require special care [3,4]. Special care is required by a large number of people such
as the elderly population. The elderly population is on the rise, leading to a substantial decline in nursing
home capacity. [5,6]. The elderly population is set to be 2.1 billion in the year 2050 according to statistics

Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5; doi:10.3390/xx010005 www.mdpi.com/journal/notspecified

Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 2 of 21

from the United Nations [7,8]. With this expected growth in elderly population, it will have even more
strain on the lack of care givers, so that dependencies on the technology will be required to support the
treatment [9]. Monitoring of elderly and vulnerable people can allow for them to live more independently.
This means that the level of care they receive can be less. This is because the monitoring can provide
real-time messages to care givers in the instance of a fall [10]. Human motion detection is the process of
using technology to extract the features of the human movement [11–13]. Human motion detection can be
used for the monitoring of patients and vulnerable people such as the elderly or young children [14,15].
Fall detection is just one example of how human motion can be used in the healthcare industry although an
important example. The world health organisation reports that falls can cause around 646 thousand death
and over 37 million serious injuries. [16,17]. If a system was able to provide careers with this information
in real time then the patient would be able to receive assistance from the carer without the carer having to
be with the vulnerable person at all times contributing to a more independent lifestyle. Human movement
can be detected by the use of wearable devices such as mobile or smart watches using accelerometers,
which can then pass the information to carers or physicians etc. [18,19]. There leaves an issue of when
the patient forgets to wear the wearable device. Another method of human motion detection is to use
radio waves already in the atmosphere such as Wi-Fi in a home network. This technique is considered as
non-invasive. Non-invasive is defined in medical terms as not involving the introduction of instruments
into the body such as the case with wearable devices. This can be achieved by using the Channel State
Information(CSI) from Wi-Fi to look at the amplitude of the CSI as a human moves between the radio
waves [20,21]. The CSI is a feature in Wi-Fi that describes how the wireless signal propagates between
the transmitting node and receiving node [22]. This data can be exploited to detected changes during a
specific human motion. This research will explore the use of Universal Software-defined Radio Peripheral
(USRP) to build a dataset of the CSI information of human activities and then use machine learning for
binary classification of a human either sitting down or standing up. USRPs will be used because they
offer a simple framework for experimentation rather than setting up complex systems for functionality
testing [15,23]. USRPs are widely used in research applications because of their ability to transfer and
receive frequencies in several bands [24]. URSPs provide flexibility as they can be tuned to a wide range of
frequencies [25]. This work will use 64 subcarriers. Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)
is used for 64 points of fast Fourier transformer (FFT) producing 64 frequency carriers (subcarriers) [26].
Lower frequencies are able to detect the smaller movements while higher frequencies are able to detect
larger movements [27]. Using USRPs allow for a range of frequencies to be used in the experimentation
which will allow a greater detection in movements overall. This paper aims to research the abilities of
using RF signals to be able to classify human motion in a real time application. This paper reports two
major contributions to the state of the art. The first contribution is presenting a simple set up of how a
machine learning model can provide real time classification on human motion using data retrieved from a
URSP. The second contribution is providing a comparison between the newly acquired dataset and an
existing wearable device human motion dataset. This paper is organised in the following sections. Section
2 will detail some of the related work. Section 3 will detail the methods employed to collect the data.
Section 4 will describe the methods of machine learning used and section 5 will display the results and
discuss said results as well as compare the results to a benchmark dataset collected from wearable devices.

2. Related Work
This section looks at the recent literature in various forms of human motion detection and where
machine learning has been applied. The articles in [28–30] collected a range of human activities where the
test subjects were using wearable accelerometer on their wrists. The dataset collected by these activities
were then run through the machine learning algorithms Random Forest, K Nearest Neighbours (KNN)
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 3 of 21

and Support Vector Machine. The results found that Support Vector Machine had the highest results
of 91.5 %. The work of [31–33] used frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar system to
look at the Doppler, temporal changes and radar cross sections to collect data of falling and other fall
related activities such as stepping, jumping, squatting, walking and jogging from 3 participants. The
data was then run through 10 cross fold validation with KNN to achieve a high accuracy result of 95.5 %.
This work demonstrates that wireless waves can be used to classify human motion through the changes
in frequencies. A similar work was done on multi channel extraction in [34,35]. Jalal et al. [36] used a
benchmark dataset of 14 indoor human activities. The benchmark dataset was collected using triaxial
accelerometer sensors. The research included separating the static activities from the dynamic activities.
The paper then went on to apply the random forest algorithm for machine learning classification. The
static results scored higher at 92.16 % with the dynamic activities scoring 80.0 % with an average result of
85.17 %. The work conducted in [37] used wearable smart watches to monitor the movement of ping-pong
players. The watch recorded data of 8 different motions on how the test subjects moved the ping-pong
paddle including forehand attack, forehand flick, backhand flick etc. The data was then processed using
7 machine learning algorithms including Random Forest, SVM, KNN and decision trees. The research
found Random Forest to be the best performance with an accuracy score of 97.80 The paper [38] made
use of CSI on Wi-Fi OFDM signals for the classification of 5 different arm movements. The human made
different arm movements while standing between a Wi-Fi router and a laptop sending wireless signals
to each other. The CSI was then captured and machine learning was applied to the collected data. The
machine learning algorithm chosen was the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) which was able to achieve
a high accuracy result of 96 %. A similar work on healthcare was done in [39–41]. Nipu et al. [42] used
CSI information to try and identify a specific person. The experiment conducted had different people
walk through two devices while data is transmitted and store the CSI information obtained while that
person walked through the radio frequencies. The dataset was then passed through the machine learning
algorithms, Random forest and Decision tree. The experiments found that the algorithms scored higher
when only 2 people were used in a binary classification experiment.

3. COLLECTION OF DATA
In this section we will discuss the methods of how the data is collected. The work of this paper
makes use of Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) devices to send packets between antennas[43].
Two USRPs were used namely the X310/X300 models from a national instrument (NI), each equipped
with extended bandwidth daughterboard slots covering DC– 6 GHz with up to 120 MHz of baseband
bandwidth. The X300 model was used as the transmitter with the X310 model performing as the receiver.
The devices were connected to two PCs through 1G Ethernet cable connections. The USRP’s were equipped
with of two VERT2450 omni directional antennas. The simulation was designed using MATLAB/Simulink
program linked to the USRP’s. The experiment was undertaken in an office environment and USRPs were
kept at 4 metres within line of sight with each other, to achieve the best performance. Experiments were
performed with set parameters. Table 1 lists the parameters of the software configuration of the USPRs.
The USRPs used in the study have a frequency range from 1 GHz to 10 GHz. Centre frequency for the
USRPs was set as 5.32 GHz and the operational frequency of omni directional antenna was also 5.32 GHz,
with 3 dBi gain. The gain of USRP chosen to be 70 for transmitter and 50 for the receiver. The hardware
parameters values of the USRP is summarised in table 2. Ethical approvals of participants have been
acquired through university of Glasgow ethic review committee. The participants were asked to perform
the different human motions in this research of standing up and sitting down. Participants completed the
task multiple times to be able to collect many samples of the CSI information to allow for error and allow
cleanest samples to be taken forward. The test was performed in a 7 by 8 meters office space containing
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 4 of 21

furniture such as tables, chairs, draws, etc. The human motion is then carried out between the antennas
and the Channel State Information is then recorded while this human motion is carried out. As radio
signal propagation is proportionate to the movement of the human, the CSI will differentiate as different
motion takes place. The CSI will show certain properties when a certain movement is made by the human.
In this paper we have recorded the CSI for multiple subjects sitting down on a chair and then standing
from a chair. As there are many variations in the way the signals propagate and human movement will
never be exactly the same, the movement should follow the same patterns in the CSI data. Some samples
can be considered as good samples where interference is set to a minimum and some samples may be
affected by ambient movement or atmosphere factors. Multiple samples are taken to try to capture the
flow of the patterns and machine learning is used to attempt to classify the samples. The final dataset
contains 30 samples each of sitting and standing. Figures 1 and 2 display the CSI of the 64 subcarriers of
the USRP. Each colour represents a subcarrrier and the frequency of the subcarrier is shown along the
Y-axis and time is shown along the X-axis while an activity is taking place. Figure 1 shows the pattern
followed in a good sample of sitting down and Figure 2 shows the pattern followed in a good sample of
standing up.

Table 1. SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS SELECTION

Parameters Values
Input data (Signal) round(0.75*rand(104,1))
Sample time 1/80e4
Modulation type QPSK
Bit per symbol M 2 bits
OFDM Subcarrier 64 subcarriers
Pilot subcarrier 4
Null subcarrier 12
Cycle prefix M NFFT-data subcarrier
Samples per frame Used subcarrier log2 (M)
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 5 of 21

Table 2. HARDWARE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS SELECTION

Parameters Values
Platform USRP X300/X310
TX IP address 192.168.11.1
RX IP address 192.168.10.1
Channel mapping 1 TX, 2 RX
Centre frequency 5.32 GHz
Local oscillator offset Dialog
PPS source Internal
Clock source Internal
Master clock rate 120 MHz
Transport data type Int16
Gain (dB) TX 70, RX 50
Sample time 1/80e4
Interpolation factor 500
Decimation factor 500

Figure 1. Channel State Information for the human motion of sitting down
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 6 of 21

Figure 2. Channel State Information for the human motion of standing up

The USRPs are configured to transmit data from one antenna to the other for 10 seconds. As the
signals propagate in different ways each time a sample is taken then the amount of packets received have
slight variations. However this has little effect as the aim is to detect patterns in the radio waves as a
certain human motion is carried out during the transmission of packets. Figure 11 details the process used
in this experimentation.

Figure 3. Experiment flow chart

4. Machine Learning Process

The dataset performance has been measured using a range of machine learning algorithms using the
Python SciKit library. Scikit is a machine learning package that is widely used in the data science field
[44]. The Samples are converted into CSV format so that they can be processed using the SciKit library.
The Python library Pandas is used to process the CSV files. Pandas imports the CSV files as dataframes
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 7 of 21

within python which the SciKit library then processes [45]. The labels are added as the first column on the
dataframes as the data is of varying length throughout the samples. Then the dataframe of each sample is
combined together to make the full dataset, the varying lengths result in NAN values being part of the
dataset. To resolve this issue SciKit provides a function called simple imputer. This is used to replace all
NAN values with a 0. Therefore the shorter samples of the dataset will contain 0 values tailing the row
on the CSV file. This is not perceived to be a problem as the differing lengths is minor and the pattern
of the RF signals are still apparent. This is part of variance between different samples. The data set is
then divided into two variables, one for the labels and one for the data itself. Then the four machine
learning algorithms are declared. The four algorithms used to test this dataset are Random Forest, K
nearest Neighbours, Support Vector Machine and Neural Networks. The ensemble classifier takes each
algorithms prediction as a vote and then whichever prediction has the most votes will be the prediction
declared by the ensemble classifier.
Random forest is a collection of decision trees. Each tree makes a prediction of the output by taking in
looking for features found in the training phase. This prediction is considered a vote. The majority of
prediction is the final Random Forest prediction [46]. Equation 1 shows how SciKit uses Random Forest:

Ni j = Wj Cj − Wle f t( j) Cle f t( j) − Wright( j) Cright( j) (1)

• Ni j = the importance of node j

• Wj = weighted number of samples reaching node j
• Cj = the impurity value of node j
• le f t j = child node from left split on node j
• right j = child node from right split on node j

The K nearest Neighbours algorithm is known for its simplicity. The algorithm works by comparing
the testing data to the training data [47]. The features of the training data are assigned a K sample then
the testing data is assigned to the K sample that nearest matches the new data [48]. Equation 2 shows the
Euclidean KNN equation which is the default method for SciKit:
v
k
u
∑ ( x i − y i )2
u
t (2)
i =1

• k = is the number of samples

• x = the data
• y = the label

The Support Vector Machine algorithm works by constructing hyper planes and uses these hyper
planes to separate the input data into different categories. The training data is used to train the hyper
planes based on features of the training data [49]. Equations 3 and 4 shows how SVM works:

positiveequation = w.u + b > 0 (3)

negativeequation = w.u + b < 0 (4)

• w = the vector per perpendicular to median of hyper plane

• u = the unknown vectors
• b = b is constraint
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 8 of 21

The Neural network model is inspired by the human brain [50]. A neural network consists of an input
layer, hidden layer and output layer which are all interconnected. The aim is to transform a set of inputs to
the desired outputs by using weights associated with the neurons in the hidden layer [51]. Neural network
passes training input, output is observed. If the output is incorrect then the hidden layer is adjusted until
the correct output is achieved. Then the testing data can be passed through the model as the input data
and the output is the prediction [52].
 n 
f b + ∑ x i wi (5)
i =1

• b = bias
• x = input to neuron
• w = weights
• n = the number of inputs from the incoming layer
• i = a counter from 0 to n

Two experiments are done using each algorithm on the dataset. The first experiment makes use of 10
fold cross validation. 10 fold cross validation is used to test machine learning models where the data is
divided into training and testing data. 10 refer to the number of groups. Each group takes a turn as the
test data and the rest of the groups are used as training data. This ensures that there is variance in the test
data. The results of the 10 runs are then averaged to give the final results [53]. The second experiment
uses the train test split method where the dataset is split 70/30. 70 % of the dataset is used to train the
dataset and 30 % of the dataset is used for testing. The results of this paper will use the performance
metrics of Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F1-score. These performance metrics are calculated by looking
at four classification values. The classification values are True Positive (TP), True Negative (TN), False
Positive (FP) and False Negative. The equations for how the performance metrics are calculated are shown
in equations 6, 7, 8 and 9.
The accuracy displays the total number of correct classifications versus the total classifications made.

TP + TN
Accuracy = (6)
TP + TN + FP + FN
Precision metric is used to measure one of the classifications against how precise it is in comparison
to all classifications. The results are presented as an average between both sitting and standing.

TP
Precision = (7)
TP + FP

The recall is used to show the ratio of the correct classification to all classifications for that label. This is
run for both sitting and standing and presented as an average.

TP
Recall = (8)
TP + FN

The F1-score is used to provide an average between the Precision and Recall Metrics.

Precision ∗ Recall
F1 − score = 2X (9)
Precision + Recall

5. Results and Discussion

This section presents the output of the machine learning algorithms after they have completed 10
fold cross validation and train test split using the python variables containing the data and comparing
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 9 of 21

the prediction of the data to the actual labels of the data. The performance metrics used to compare the
algorithms include the accuracy score as well as precision, recall and f1 score. A confusion matrix is also
provided to show how each sample has been classified.

5.1. Cross Validation

Table 3. Cross validation Results

Algorithm Accuracy Precision recall f1-score
Random Forest 92.47 % 0.93 0.92 0.92
K nearest Neighbours 88.17 % 0.89 0.88 0.88
Support Vector Machine 84.68 % 0.86 0.85 0.85
Neural network model 90.05 % 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ensemble Classifier 92.18 % 0.92 0.92 0.92

In table 2 it can be seen that the best accuracy is from Random Forest followed by the neural network.
Although both KNN and Support Vector Machine still have high accuracy. When the algorithms are
compiled together in the ensemble classifier the accuracy is 92.18 %. The accuracy is calculated as an
average of the 10 sets of testing data used in each of the 10 cross fold validation process. The dataset is
made up of 30 samples each of sitting and standing which each contain 64 subcarriers. So the total number
of rows contained in the dataset is 3840 subcarriers. The confusion matrix is a table used to describe how
an algorithm has performed. The confusion matrix shows exactly how many samples were classified in
which category. The Y axis on the confusion matrix represents the prediction of the algorithm and the X
axis represents the actual classification.

Figure 4. Confusion matrix for Random Forest

The Random Forest algorithm was the best performer out of all the algorithms. It can be seen on
Figure 4 how the 3840 samples have been classified. 1821 sitting samples were correctly classified as sitting.
This is represented in the top left square where the X axis matches the Y axis. Then 99 sitting samples
were incorrectly classified as standing. This is where the X axis and Y axis mismatch. The majority of
sitting samples were correctly classified so this shows good results. The classification of standing samples
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 10 of 21

was slightly less accurate but still good results. 190 samples were classified incorrectly as sitting, which
is higher than the 99 sitting samples incorrectly classified as standing. This leaves the remaining 1730
standing samples as being correctly classified.

Figure 5. Confusion matrix for KNN

The KNN algorithm had an accuracy score of 88.17 %, which is only around 4 % less than Random
Forest. In the confusion matrix shown in Figure 5 it can be observed on how much the classifications
differ in the 4 % difference in accuracy. It appears that both algorithms had better classification results
with sitting over standing. KNN had 138 sitting subcarriers incorrectly classified as standing but had 316
standing classifiers incorrectly classified as sitting. However the majority of subcarriers were classified
correctly.

Figure 6. Confusion matrix for SVM

Support Vector Machine was the lowest scoring algorithm in this experiment but with an accuracy
score of 84.68 %, the majority of samples were classified correctly. Unlike Random forest and KNN, SVM
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 11 of 21

showed better performance with the standing up samples. Only 111 of the standing subcarriers were
wrongly classified as sitting down. 477 sitting down samples were classified incorrectly as standing. As
shown in Figure 6.

Figure 7. Confusion matrix for Neural Networks

The Neural Network classifier had the second best accuracy score of 90.05 %. Like Random forest
and KNN, it had better performance with sitting down samples. The confusion matrix shown in Figure 7
shows only 132 sitting samples were incorrectly classified compared to the 250 standing samples classified
incorrectly.

Figure 8. Confusion matrix for Ensemble Classification

The confusion matrix for the ensemble classification is shown in Figure 8. The ensemble has the best
performance with the sitting down samples with only 75 of the samples being classified as incorrect. The
ensemble classifier was let down by the standing up samples as it incorrectly classified 225 samples. It can
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 12 of 21

be seen that the ensemble technique worked well with the sitting down samples but was not so good with
the standing up samples. Support Vector Machine had the lowest error rate for standing up samples.

5.2. Train Test Split

Table 4. Train Test Split results

Algorithm Accuracy Precision recall f1-score
Random Forest 96.70 0.97 0.97 0.972
%
K nearest Neighbours 90.71 0.91 0.91 0.91
%
Support Vector Machine 81.77 0.87 0.82 0.82
%
Neural network model 93.40 0.94 0.93 0.93
%
Ensemble Classifier 93.83 0.94 0.94 0.94
%

In table 4 it can be seen that the best accuracy is still Random Forest followed by the neural network.
Although both KNN and Support Vector Machine still have high accuracy. When the algorithms are
compiled together in the ensemble classifier the accuracy is 93.83 %. The accuracy is calculated by
comparing the 30 % test data predictions to the actual labels of the data. The full dataset is made up of
30 samples each of sitting and standing which each contain 64 subcarriers. So the total number of rows
contained in the dataset is 3840 subcarriers. 1152 subcarriers is the number of the 30 % test samples used
in the train test split method rather than the whole dataset being used testing data at some point. In the
testing data there are 512 standing up samples and 640 sitting down samples. The confusion matrix in this
experiment shows only the 1152 samples, the total number of tested samples.

Figure 9. Confusion matrix for Random Forest

The Random Forest algorithm was the best performer out of all the algorithms. It can be seen on
Figure 9 how the 1152 samples have been classified. 606 sitting samples were correctly classified as sitting.
This is represented in the top left square where the X axis matches the Y axis. Then 34 sitting samples
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 13 of 21

were incorrectly classified as standing. This is where the X axis and Y axis mismatch. The majority of
sitting samples were correctly classified which is a positive result. The classification of standing samples
was more accurate than sitting in contrast to the cross validation results. Only 4 samples were classified
incorrectly as sitting this leaves the remaining 508 standing samples as being correctly classified.

Figure 10. Confusion matrix for KNN

The KNN algorithm had an accuracy score of 90.71 %, which is an improvement over the cross
validation experiment. In the confusion matrix shown in Figure 10, KNN just like Random Forest
performed better with the standing up samples rather than the sitting down samples. KNN had 69 sitting
subcarriers incorrectly classified as standing but had only 38 standing classifiers incorrectly classified as
sitting. However the majority of subcarriers were classified correctly.

Figure 11. Confusion matrix for SVM

Support Vector Machine was the lowest scoring algorithm in this experiment but with an accuracy
score of 81.77 %, the majority of samples were classified correctly. Like Random forest and KNN, SVM
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 14 of 21

showed better performance with the standing up samples. Only 1 of the standing subcarriers was wrongly
classified as sitting down however 209 sitting down samples were classified incorrectly as standing, as
shown in Figure 11.

Figure 12. Confusion matrix for Neural Networks

The Neural Network classifier had the second best accuracy score of 93.40 %. Like the other
algorithms, it had better performance with standing up samples. The confusion matrix shown in Figure
12 shows 76 sitting samples were incorrectly classified compared to the 0 standing samples classified
incorrectly.

Figure 13. Confusion matrix for Ensemble Classification

Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 15 of 21

The confusion matrix for the ensemble classification is shown in Figure 13. The ensemble method
shows better performance with the standing samples as expected as all the algorithms performed better
with the standing samples. The ensemble method gave a good average number for the incorrect sitting
samples preventing it going to high, making use of the voting system.

5.3. Comparison of Cross Validation and Train Test Split

The difference in accuracy can be seen in Figure 14. The train test split shows better classification
results with the standing up samples. This is because there are more standing up samples within the 70
% training set. This shows that the more training on a sample gives better results. All of the algorithms
have higher accuracy except from SVM with the train test split. Cross validation however gives a better
representation of the algorithm performance since all of the data takes turn of training and testing so every
possible combination is tested.

Figure 14. Comparison of Cross Validation and Train Test Split

5.4. Real Time classification

For Real Time classification of data the dataset needs to be used to create a model. As Random forest
provided the highest accuracy results, it was chosen to create the model. Instead of dividing the dataset
into 10 groups for cross fold validation, the whole dataset was used for training. This allows for the model
to have the most amount of training. The SciKit Python package allows for models to be saved and recalled
later by using the Joblib package. Flask was used to create a web interface which could action Python
scripts.
The application works when the user presses the "Run Classification" button. The button then actions
a Python script within the Flask app. The Python script works by connecting to the Matlab session that
records the CSI from the USRP. The Matlab session will need to be shared and then Python can connect
and access the variables stored on Matlab. When an experiment is ran on the USRP the CSI is stored in a
timeseries called CSI in Matlab. The Python script first activates a Matlab script which then extracts the
raw CSI data from the timeseries. Once the raw data is stored on a variable in Matlab the Python script can
access the variable and apply the previously saved model to make classifications on the new data obtained
from the USRPs. As this process take place the interface will display "Loading..." as the output. To test the
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 16 of 21

real time application additional samples of sitting down and standing up were taken. Six of each group
were taken to give a total of 12 samples. These 12 samples were completely unseen when training the
model as they were not contained in the dataset. The trained model was able to correctly classify all of
these samples. As seen in Figure 15, the classification is displayed as the output after the script has run.
This web application has proved to be able to access the Matlab variable that contains the CSI obtained
from the USRP and make classifications using a previously stored model. The real time web application is
able to be extended to make any amount of classifications as it is based on the model used to make the
classifications of newly received data. Figure 16 details the process undertaken by the real time application
web interface.

Figure 15. Flask web interface displaying classification result

Figure 16. Flask web interface process

5.5. Benchmark dataset

As the machine learning results for the dataset were of high accuracy, it evidences that CSI is a viable
method for human motion detection. For a comparison on how effective CSI can be to identify human
motion we have compared the machine learning results of this dataset to that of another dataset. [54]
have published a dataset detecting a range of human motions using smart phones which are equipped
with accelerometers. The machine learning process used with the USRP dataset created in this research
has been applied to this benchmark training dataset. This comparison gives a good indication of how
non-interference detection compares to wearable devices in the field of human motion detection.
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 17 of 21

Table 5. Comparison of results with cross validation

Algorithm USRP Dataset Benchmark
Accuracy Dataset
accuracy
Random Forest 92.47 % 91.20 %
K nearest Neighbours 88.17 % 77.06 %
Support Vector Machine 84.68 % 85.90 %
Neural network model 90.05 % 89.21 %
Ensemble Classifier 92.18 % 92.40 %

Table 6. Comparison of results with train test split

Algorithm USRP Dataset Benchmark
Accuracy Dataset
accuracy
Random Forest 96.70 % 96.49 %
K nearest Neighbours 90.71 % 92.48 %
Support Vector Machine 81.77 % 86.21 %
Neural network model 93.40 % 96.11 %
Ensemble Classifier 93.83 % 97.74 %

Figure 17. Comparison of results with cross validation

Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 18 of 21

Figure 18. Comparison of results with train test split

The results show that the USRP dataset is able to provide similar results to the benchmark dataset
which is using wearable devices. The Random Forest algorithm displays similar results. The accuracy
values are shown in tables 5 and 6 for cross validation and train test split experiments respectfully. Figures
17 and 18 give visual representation of the differences between the two datasets for cross validation and
train test split experiments respectfully. The Random Forest was the best performer in both sets of data
with both cross validation and train test split methods. KNN performed much better using the USRP
dataset with a cross validation but was lower with train test split. Support Vector Machine had similar
performance within the two datasets with only a larger difference in accuracy between datasets using
the train split method. The Neural Network algorithm also had a small difference between datasets
with a slight increase with the cross validated USRP dataset but a larger difference in favour of the
benchmark dataset when using train test split. The ensemble classifier actually performed better with
the benchmark dataset in both methods but by only a small difference when using the cross validation
method. Such findings demonstrate that the USRP is capable of producing similar results and even higher
precision scores compared to a dataset obtained using wearable devices.The primary reason that the
datasets collected using USRP outperforms the wearable devices datasets is that USRP leveage on multiple
frequency subcarriers. An intricate change in wireless medium is picked up by the multiple carrier USRP
model, whereas the wearable devices such as accelerometer and magnetometer as not sensitive enough
against body motion. That is why, due to high sensitivity against body motion, the USRP works better in
detecting body movements.

6. Conclusion
In this paper we have proposed an algorithm and dataset which can be used in the detection of
human motion. The dataset includes observations of the channel state information from USRPs as human
activities takes place between the antennas. The dataset is designed for binary classification between
sitting down and standing up human motion. The performance of machine learning show good results
with the Random Forest algorithm producing a high accuracy result of 92.47 %. The high accuracy in the
results show that there is a significant difference between the CSI information of standing up and sitting
down for a machine algorithm to be able to establish the difference. The web application was able to
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 19 of 21

successfully classify samples of data that were absent during the learning phase directly from the Matlab
session which contained the CSI directly from the USRP. The use of USRP data to detect human motion
was also compared to a benchmark dataset where human motion was detected using wearable devices.
The same machine learning techniques were applied to the benchmark dataset and the results shows good
accuracy with the benchmark dataset.

7. Acknowledgement
William Taylor’s studentship is funded by CENSIS UK through Scottish funding council in
collaboration with British Telecom. This work is supported in parts by EPSRC DTG EP/N509668/1
Eng, EP/T021020/1 and EP/T021063/1

References
1. Yang, X.; Ren, X.; Chen, M.; Wang, L.; Ding, Y. Human Posture Recognition in Intelligent Healthcare. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing, 2020, Vol. 1437, p. 012014.
2. Abbasi, Q.H.; Rehman, M.U.; Qaraqe, K.; Alomainy, A. Advances in body-centric wireless communication:
Applications and state-of-the-art; Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2016.
3. Dong, B.; Ren, A.; Shah, S.A.; Hu, F.; Zhao, N.; Yang, X.; Haider, D.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, W.; Abbasi, Q.H.
Monitoring of atopic dermatitis using leaky coaxial cable. Healthcare technology letters 2017, 4, 244–248.
4. Al-Mishmish, H.; Alkhayyat, A.; Rahim, H.A.; Hammood, D.A.; Ahmad, R.B.; Abbasi, Q.H. Critical data-based
incremental cooperative communication for wireless body area network. Sensors 2018, 18, 3661.
5. Mercuri, M.; Garripoli, C.; Karsmakers, P.; Soh, P.J.; Vandenbosch, G.A.; Pace, C.; Leroux, P.; Schreurs, D.
Healthcare system for non-invasive fall detection in indoor environment. In Applications in Electronics Pervading
Industry, Environment and Society; Springer, 2016; pp. 145–152.
6. Haider, D.; Ren, A.; Fan, D.; Zhao, N.; Yang, X.; Shah, S.A.; Hu, F.; Abbasi, Q.H. An efficient monitoring of
eclamptic seizures in wireless sensors networks. Computers & Electrical Engineering 2019, 75, 16–30.
7. Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Ren, L.; Wang, F.; Liu, R.; Pang, Z.; Deen, M.J. A novel cloud-based
framework for the elderly healthcare services using digital twin. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 49088–49101.
8. Fan, D.; Ren, A.; Zhao, N.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Shah, S.A.; Hu, F.; Abbasi, Q.H. Breathing rhythm analysis in
body centric networks. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 32507–32513.
9. Shang, C.; Chang, C.Y.; Chen, G.; Zhao, S.; Chen, H. BIA: Behavior Identification Algorithm using Unsupervised
Learning Based on Sensor Data for Home Elderly. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 2019.
10. Yang, X.; Shah, S.A.; Ren, A.; Zhao, N.; Zhao, J.; Hu, F.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, W.; Rehman, M.U.; Alomainy, A.
Monitoring of patients suffering from REM sleep behavior disorder. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and
Microwaves in Medicine and Biology 2018, 2, 138–143.
11. Zhang, T.; Song, T.; Chen, D.; Zhang, T.; Zhuang, J. WiGrus: A Wifi-Based Gesture Recognition System Using
Software-Defined Radio. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 131102–131113.
12. Tahir, A.; Ahmad, J.; Shah, S.A.; Morison, G.; Skelton, D.A.; Larijani, H.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Imran, M.A.; Gibson,
R.M. WiFreeze: Multiresolution Scalograms for Freezing of Gait Detection in Parkinsons Leveraging 5G
Spectrum with Deep Learning. Electronics 2019, 8, 1433.
13. Liu, L.; Shah, S.A.; Zhao, G.; Yang, X. Respiration symptoms monitoring in body area networks. Applied
Sciences 2018, 8, 568.
14. Yang, X.; Fan, D.; Ren, A.; Zhao, N.; Shah, S.A.; Alomainy, A.; Ur-Rehman, M.; Abbasi, Q.H. Diagnosis of the
Hypopnea syndrome in the early stage. Neural Computing and Applications 2020, 32, 855–866.
15. Demir, A.F.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Ankarali, Z.E.; Alomainy, A.; Qaraqe, K.; Serpedin, E.; Arslan, H. Anatomical
region-specific in vivo wireless communication channel characterization. IEEE journal of biomedical and health
informatics 2016, 21, 1254–1262.
16. Santos, G.L.; Endo, P.T.; Monteiro, K.H.d.C.; Rocha, E.d.S.; Silva, I.; Lynn, T. Accelerometer-based human fall
detection using convolutional neural networks. Sensors 2019, 19, 1644.
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 20 of 21

17. Jilani, S.F.; Munoz, M.O.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Alomainy, A. Millimeter-wave liquid crystal polymer based conformal
antenna array for 5G applications. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 2018, 18, 84–88.
18. Yao, X.; Khan, A.; Jin, Y. Energy Efficient Communication among Wearable Devices using Optimized Motion
Detection. 2019 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6.
19. Yang, X.D.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Alomainy, A.; Hao, Y. Spatial correlation analysis of on-body radio channels
considering statistical significance. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 2011, 10, 780–783.
20. Zhao, J.; Liu, L.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, W.; Fan, Y. R-DEHM: CSI-based robust duration estimation of
human motion with WiFi. Sensors 2019, 19, 1421.
21. Chopra, N.; Yang, K.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Qaraqe, K.A.; Philpott, M.; Alomainy, A. THz time-domain spectroscopy
of human skin tissue for in-body nanonetworks. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 2016,
6, 803–809.
22. Lolla, S.; Zhao, A. WiFi Motion Detection: A Study into Efficacy and Classification. 2019 IEEE Integrated STEM
Education Conference (ISEC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 375–378.
23. Christiansen, J.M.; Smith, G.E. Development and Calibration of a Low-Cost Radar Testbed Based on the
Universal Software Radio Peripheral. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 2019, 34, 50–60.
24. Kim, S.C. Device-free activity recognition using CSI & big data analysis: A survey. 2017 Ninth International
Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN). IEEE, 2017, pp. 539–541.
25. Tichy, M.; Ulovec, K. OFDM system implementation using a USRP unit for testing purposes. Proceedings of
22nd International Conference Radioelektronika 2012. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–4.
26. Ashleibta, A.; Shah, S.; Zahid, A.; Imran, M.A.; Abbasi, Q.H. Software Defined Radio Based Testbed for Large
Scale Body Movements 2020.
27. Zhang, J.; Xu, W.; Hu, W.; Kanhere, S.S. WiCare: Towards In-Situ Breath Monitoring. Proceedings of the 14th
EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services, 2017,
pp. 126–135.
28. Chin, Z.H.; Ng, H.; Yap, T.T.V.; Tong, H.L.; Ho, C.C.; Goh, V.T. Daily Activities Classification on Human Motion
Primitives Detection Dataset. In Computational Science and Technology; Springer, 2019; pp. 117–125.
29. Shah, S.A.; Fan, D.; Ren, A.; Zhao, N.; Yang, X.; Tanoli, S.A.K. Seizure episodes detection via smart medical
sensing system. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 2018, pp. 1–13.
30. Fioranelli, F.; Le Kernec, J.; Shah, S.A. Radar for Health Care: Recognizing Human Activities and Monitoring
Vital Signs. IEEE Potentials 2019, 38, 16–23.
31. Ding, C.; Zou, Y.; Sun, L.; Hong, H.; Zhu, X.; Li, C. Fall detection with multi-domain features by a portable
FMCW radar. 2019 IEEE MTT-S International Wireless Symposium (IWS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–3.
32. Shah, S.A.; Fioranelli, F. Human Activity Recognition: Preliminary Results for Dataset Portability using FMCW
Radar 2019.
33. Shah, S.A.; Fioranelli, F. RF sensing technologies for assisted daily living in healthcare: A comprehensive
review. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 2019, 34, 26–44.
34. Liu, X.; Zhang, X. NOMA-based Resource Allocation for Cluster-based Cognitive Industrial Internet of Things.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2019.
35. Liu, X.; Jia, M.; Zhang, X.; Lu, W. A novel multichannel Internet of things based on dynamic spectrum sharing
in 5G communication. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2018, 6, 5962–5970.
36. Jalal, A.; Quaid, M.A.K.; Kim, K. A wrist worn acceleration based human motion analysis and classification for
ambient smart home system. Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology 2019, 14, 1733–1739.
37. Zhang, H.; Fu, Z.; Shu, K.I. Recognizing Ping-Pong Motions Using Inertial Data Based on Machine Learning
Classification Algorithms. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 167055–167064.
38. Zhang, P.; Su, Z.; Dong, Z.; Pahlavan, K. Complex Motion Detection Based on Channel State Information and
LSTM-RNN. 2020 10th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). IEEE,
2020, pp. 0756–0760.
Journal Not Specified 2019, xx, 5 21 of 21

39. Al-Khafajiy, M.; Otoum, S.; Baker, T.; Asim, M.; Maamar, Z.; Aloqaily, M.; Taylor, M.; Randles, M. Intelligent
Control and Security of Fog Resources in Healthcare Systems via a Cognitive Fog Model. ACM Transactions on
Internet Technology.
40. Oueida, S.; Kotb, Y.; Aloqaily, M.; Jararweh, Y.; Baker, T. An edge computing based smart healthcare framework
for resource management. Sensors 2018, 18, 4307.
41. Anjomshoa, F.; Aloqaily, M.; Kantarci, B.; Erol-Kantarci, M.; Schuckers, S. Social behaviometrics for personalized
devices in the internet of things era. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 12199–12213.
42. Nipu, M.N.A.; Talukder, S.; Islam, M.S.; Chakrabarty, A. Human identification using wifi signal. 2018 Joint 7th
International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV) and 2018 2nd International Conference
on Imaging, Vision & Pattern Recognition (icIVPR). IEEE, 2018, pp. 300–304.
43. Tanoli, S.A.K.; Rehman, M.; Khan, M.B.; Jadoon, I.; Ali Khan, F.; Nawaz, F.; Shah, S.A.; Yang, X.; Nasir, A.A. An
experimental channel capacity analysis of cooperative networks using Universal Software Radio Peripheral
(USRP). Sustainability 2018, 10, 1983.
44. Hao, J.; Ho, T.K. Machine Learning Made Easy: A Review of Scikit-learn Package in Python Programming
Language. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2019, 44, 348–361.
45. Pappalardo, L. SCIKIT-MOBILITY: A PYTHON LIBRARY FOR THE ANALYSIS, GENERATION AND RISK
ASSESSMENT OF MOBILITY DATA. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07062 2019.
46. Shaikhina, T.; Lowe, D.; Daga, S.; Briggs, D.; Higgins, R.; Khovanova, N. Decision tree and random forest
models for outcome prediction in antibody incompatible kidney transplantation. Biomedical Signal Processing
and Control 2019, 52, 456–462.
47. Saçlı, B.; Aydınalp, C.; Cansız, G.; Joof, S.; Yilmaz, T.; Çayören, M.; Önal, B.; Akduman, I. Microwave dielectric
property based classification of renal calculi: Application of a kNN algorithm. Computers in biology and medicine
2019, 112, 103366.
48. Li, K.; Gu, Y.; Zhang, P.; An, W.; Li, W. Research on KNN Algorithm in Malicious PDF Files Classification under
Adversarial Environment. Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Big Data and Computing,
2019, pp. 156–159.
49. Jain, M.; Narayan, S.; Balaji, P.; Bhowmick, A.; Muthu, R.K.; others. Speech emotion recognition using support
vector machine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07590 2020.
50. Hamid, Y.; Sugumaran, M.; Balasaraswathi, V. Ids using machine learning-current state of art and future
directions. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 2016, pp. 1–22.
51. Hassan, A.A.; Sheta, A.F.; Wahbi, T.M. Intrusion Detection System Using Weka Data Mining Tool. Internaitonal
Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) 2017, 6, 2319–7064.
52. Biswas, S.K. Intrusion detection using machine learning: A comparison study. International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics 2018, 118, 101–114.
53. Tandon, S.; Tripathi, S.; Saraswat, P.; Dabas, C. Bitcoin Price Forecasting using LSTM and 10-Fold Cross
validation. 2019 International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication (ICSC). IEEE, 2019, pp.
323–328.
54. Anguita, D.; Ghio, A.; Oneto, L.; Parra, X.; Reyes-Ortiz, J.L. A public domain dataset for human activity
recognition using smartphones. Esann, 2013.

c 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).