RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION (RFID)-BASED ELDERLY FALL DETECTION USING LONG SHORT-TERM MEMORY (LSTM)
Falls in the elderly can have fatal consequences if not addressed quickly, therefore it’s critical to have a system capable of reliably detecting falls and immediately notifying caregivers. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is one such technology. Among various configurations, the most practi...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Final Project |
Language: | Indonesia |
Online Access: | https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/86430 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Institut Teknologi Bandung |
Language: | Indonesia |
Summary: | Falls in the elderly can have fatal consequences if not addressed quickly, therefore
it’s critical to have a system capable of reliably detecting falls and immediately
notifying caregivers. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is one such
technology. Among various configurations, the most practical setup involves
positioning a reader at the edge of the room and attaching multiple passive tags to
the elderly’s clothing. The way RFID works is that the reader emits a signal,
which is then reflected by the RFID tags and received back by the reader. This
signal strength is known as the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI).
Obstruction by the elderly’s body, also called body shadowing, can be used to
predict indications of a fall event. In similar systems, falls are predicted using
classical machine learning algorithms, though trends suggest that models based on
Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) have the potential to deliver better
performance. This study shows that pure LSTM achieved 99.39% accuracy and
F1macro
, while CNN-LSTM achieved perfect accuracy and F1macro
. These results
were obtained from training and testing the model on a dataset containing 4,128
data points (1,920 positive and 2,208 negative) with 30 tags placed. When testing
on continuous real- case scenarios using a sliding window approach, pure LSTM
only achieved 65.63% accuracy and 65.17% F1macro
, while CNN-LSTM reached
82.29% accuracy and 80.23% F1macro
Additionally, this study shows that
CNN-LSTM with only 10 tags in specific positions still delivered good
performance, only slightly worse than pure LSTM. |
---|