-
We are looking for 95-98% of a good step counter. 20% is far too inaccurate
Yes of course. That interval was meant to exclude degenerate cases. Just means something like "we can assume Fitbit/Mi not worse than 20%".
This is where the bulk of our thinking needs to go.
Yes, I am very aware of that.
I also did record some of those already (eg see attached one that I do think will be pretty challenging from a cahier. Here we do have regular patterns that might look very much like steps when the hand moves goods over the scanner)
But thats exactly the point: to seperate those phases with and without steps in real life situations. That is almost impossible if alternating relative rapidly (as opposed to car driving /sleeping). With the development tool of ankle measure, those could be determined I hope (eg. for cashier I wouldn't expect any correlation when moving goods, only when walking)
What I am up to is to generate a more relieable step signal for training purposes (each step, not only sum number).I seem not to be able to express myself clearly - I am very sorry for that.
Lets continue that discussion after I can present some code here. That may clearify (or invalidate) my idea.
And please don't get me wrong: I am very impressed what you achieved already!
For my personal uscase its already more than good enough. I play with that not out of need but scientific curiosity. (I did work with acc in the past on quite challenging problems in my job).
On the other hand: when haveing more time I might concentrate on heart rate, that is more in need right now I think. Have no prior experince with PPG signals though.
1 Attachment
You are reading a single comment by @Mi and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Mi
Sure -if you want to walk around with a bangle watch strapped to your ankle. The watch is for wearing on the wrist not the ankle. Most people are not going to strap it to their leg etc. The accelerometer traces and thresholds will be completely different for a step counter designed work off a foot to one worn on a wrist. Its completely different approach. We are trying to optimise for the step counter to work when the watch is being worn - just like any other fitness band. Adding accelerometer logs recorded at ground level is introducing an uncalibrated meaure thats going to confuse matters.
We are looking for 95-98% of a good step counter. 20% is far too inaccurate.
The fundemental problem isn't counting steps accurately when walking - its how NOT to count steps when NOT walking but still count them accurately when walking. This is where the bulk of our thinking needs to go.