Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T19:54:35.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fall detection for elderly-people monitoring using learned features and recurrent neural networks

Subject: Computer Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2020

Daniele Berardini*
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Sara Moccia
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Lucia Migliorelli
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Iacopo Pacifici
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Paolo di Massimo
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Marina Paolanti
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Emanuele Frontoni
Affiliation:
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: dani.berard.db@gmail.com

Abstract

Elderly care is becoming a relevant issue with the increase of population ageing. Fall injuries, with their impact on social and healthcare cost, represent one of the biggest concerns over the years. Researchers are focusing their attention on several fall-detection algorithms. In this paper, we present a deep-learning solution for automatic fall detection from RGB videos. The proposed approach achieved a mean recall of 0.916, prompting the possibility of translating this approach in the actual monitoring practice. Moreover to enable the scientific community making research on the topic the dataset used for our experiments will be released. This could enhance elderly people safety and quality of life, attenuating risks during elderly activities of daily living with reduced healthcare costs as a final result.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020
Figure 0

Figure. 1. Workflow of the proposed approach for fall detection from RGB video sequences.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Boxplots of the Rec for classification on UCF-101 achieved with the Top and the No Top configurations. Mean (green) and Median (orange) of the Rec are showed too.

Figure 2

Figure 3. ROC curves for the five folds of the No Freeze (up) and the Freeze (down) approaches. Mean AUCstandard deviation) is reported, too.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Confusion matrices for 5-fold cross-validation with the No Freeze configuration. The colorbar indicates the number of test samples.

Reviewing editor:  Adín Ramírez Rivera UNICAMP, Institute of Computing, Av. Albert Einstein 1251, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, 13083-872
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Fall detection for elderly-people monitoring using learned features and recurrent neural networks

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper is based on a research regarding use of deep learning for automatic fall detection of elderly-peope. In detail, the detection is done over videos and the paper considers the obtained findings as well as the development flow in this manner. From a general perspective, the paper has an interesting, important topic and comes with a pure, technically-enough content. So, it seems acceptable. I only suggest a few minor revisions as final touches:

  1. 1- Please support the first paragraph of the Introduction section, with one or two more references. That will make more sense in terms of starting point of the research.

  2. 2- After starting to the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction section with “According to [2]…”, the sentence should be ended as “…devices [3-5].” by taking citations at the end of the sentence.

  3. 3- In Fig. 3, please provide the graphics in bigger sizes, (from up to down) in order to improve readability.

  4. 4- Is there any future work(s) planned? That should be indicated at the last section briefly. Thanks the author(s) for their valuable efforts to form this paper-research.

Presentation

Overall score 3.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Fall detection for elderly-people monitoring using learned features and recurrent neural networks

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: I found the experiments and results interesting but its description, motivation, and support for the novelty claim were lacking.

  • Description

    A detailed description of the experimental setup, the data used and the challenges it presents should be incorporated. Although the relationship of the two neural networks can be guessed from the reported tensor dimensions this information should be clearly stated. Figure 1. lists the components but doesn’t present their relationship or details of the experimental setup. For example, it is not clear how a Bi-LSTM trained to predict 101 categories of the pre-train-data is later fine-tuned to predict 2 categories.

  • Motivation

    Although the motivation to use of VGG16 for feature extraction can be guessed by the reader, the author’s should justify this choice. In general, LSTMs are justified over long sequences but in this experiment, only 7 frames are used. No comparison to alternative methods or configurations were presented for the LSTM.

  • Novelty

    Stronger evidence in terms of the novelty of the experimental setup or its results should be made. In the introduction, the authors show alternative approaches to detect human falls but do not provide any point of comparison, e.g. in terms of recall scores or robustness against noise.

  • Misc

    The data and code should be publically available, not “under reasonable request”.

    While there should be an explanation on how to reproduce your results/use your code, trivial information on how to clone a git repository should be avoided.

    Avoid half-page information sparse figures.

Presentation

Overall score 2.2 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
2 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
1 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3.4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
1 out of 5