Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Summary of related works based on conventional machine learning methods.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Summary of related works based on deep learning methods.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Proposed framework: (a) Training of an SVM classifier using ResNet-50 features, (b) Posture classification using the trained SVM model and ResNet-50 features.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

A residual block.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Key frames of MCF dataset showing different postures: (a) Standing or walking, (b) Lying on ground, (c) Moving down or sitting, (d) Standing up.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

Number of frames for each posture of four datasets namely MCF, URFD, UPFD-Four Postures (UPFD-4P), and UPFD-Two Postures (UPFD-2P).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Key frames of UR Fall dataset with varying postures: (a) standing or walking, (b) lying on ground, (c) moving down or falling, (d) standing up.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Key frames of UPFD dataset with varying postures: (a) standing or walking, (b) lying on the ground, (c) moving down or falling, (d) standing up or jumping.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 4.

Comparison of the proposed approach (PA) in terms of accuracy (%) with existing architectures on the MCF dataset.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison of proposed approach (PA) in terms of time (sec) with existing architectures on MCF dataset.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Comparison of existing approaches with proposed approach (PA) in terms of accuracy (%) on MCF dataset.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison of the proposed approach (PA) in terms of accuracy (%) with existing architectures on URFD dataset and UP-Fall detection dataset.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Comparison of proposed approach (PA) in terms of time (sec) with existing architectures on URFD dataset and UP-Fall detection dataset.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 7.

Comparison of existing approaches with proposed approach (PA) in terms of % accuracy on URFD dataset.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Comparison of existing approaches with proposed approach (PA) in terms of accuracy (%) on UPFD dataset.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Parameters used for comparison of Decision Tree, Random Forest, KNN, AdaBoost, MLP, and SVM.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Comparison of variants of the proposed approach (PA) in terms of accuracy (%) on four datasets namely MCF (Camera 1 to Camera 8), URFD, UPFD (Two Postures), and UPFD (Four Postures).

More »

Table 10 Expand

Fig 8.

Features (first two principal components (A1 & A2)) of pooling layer of proposed approach of URFD dataset for four human poses including standing or walking, lying on the ground, moving down or falling, and standing up using (a) Scatter plot, (b) Linear projection.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 11.

Within-class (average distance) and between-class(average linkage) distances for URFD dataset (ResNet-50 features).

More »

Table 11 Expand

Fig 9.

VGG-19 low-level feature visualization of URFD dataset for human pose standing or walking.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

ResNet-50 low-level feature visualization of URFD dataset for human pose standing or walking.

More »

Fig 10 Expand