1 / 23

A Comparison of Algorithms for User Target Intention Recognition

A Comparison of Algorithms for User Target Intention Recognition. Gökçen Aslan Aydemir, Pat Langdon, Simon Godsill Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK {ga283,pml24}@cam.ac.uk sjg@eng.cam.ac.uk

asher-ellison
Download Presentation

A Comparison of Algorithms for User Target Intention Recognition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of Algorithms for User Target Intention Recognition Gökçen Aslan Aydemir, Pat Langdon, Simon Godsill Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK {ga283,pml24}@cam.ac.uk sjg@eng.cam.ac.uk International Workshop on Personalisable Media Systems& Smart Accessibility co-located at NEM Summit 2012 October 17th, 2012 in Istanbul, Turkey

  2. Outline • Introduction and Motivation • Intention Recognition from Bearing Angle • Intention Recognition with Kalman Filter • Comparison • Conclusion IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  3. Introduction • Objectives • Reduce time spent to select a target • Reduce difficulty important for motor impaired people • Smooth cursor movement IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  4. So far… • Angle based target prediction [Murata,1998] • Linear Regression from peak velocity – target distance relationship [Asano et.al, 2005] • Quadratic function fitting to partial trajectory to predict endpoint. [McGuffin, Balakrishnan,2005 ] However: • Cursor trajectories and velocity profiles are different for users with motor impairments IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  5. Motivation Prediction and smoothing is especially important for users with motor impairments. IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  6. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 φT3 φT2 φT4 φT1 φT5 Current cursor pos (t) Previous cursor pos (t-1) Total Angle to Bearing Algorithm IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  7. Total Angle to Bearing Algorithm IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  8. A common cursor trace and prediction Intention Recognition from Bearing Angle IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  9. Intention Recognition from Bearing Angle • A cursor trace with overshoot over target IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  10. How does it perform? • Performs well for able bodied users and relatively straight cursor paths • Cannot handle extreme cases • Cannot handle targets on the same movement direction • Performance depends on buffer size/history  brings computational complexity IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  11. Intention Recognition with Kalman Filter • A Markov Model • Current state only depends on previous state • No need to store history • Nearly Constant Velocity Model • Velocity is driven by white noise • Noise std can be personalized • Uniform probability assumed for all targets at the beginning • Probability is penalized/updated • Angle • Distance • Angle and distance IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  12. Target probability • For N targets , at t = 0, uniform probability pi = 1/N • t > 0 pi+I = pi / distance_to_target pi+I = pi / angle_to_target pi+I = pi / (angle_to_target* distance_to_target) Norm(pi+I ) IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  13. How does it perform? • Less computational complexity • No need to keep history • Smooth and predict at the same time • Performance is not improved significantly for able-bodied users • Extreme cases are handled more robustly IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  14. Comparison – Case 1 Prediction with bearing angle IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  15. Comparison – Case 1 Prediction with bearing angle IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  16. Comparison – Case 1 Prediction with Kalman Filter IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  17. Comparison – Case 2 Prediction with bearing angle IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  18. Comparison – Case 2 Prediction with Kalman Filter IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  19. Comparison – Case 2 Prediction with Kalman Filter IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  20. Conclusion • 471 cases • Alternative firing mechanism  Provide intended target only if the same target is predicted for k times. • Bearing algorithm failed to stay on correct target prediction in 35 cases • Prediction availability IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  21. Conclusion • 471 cases • Alternative firing mechanism  Provide intended target only if the same target is predicted for k times. • Bearing algorithm failed to stay on correct target prediction in 35 cases • Prediction availability • Prediction accuracy  correct prediction/all predictions for a task • Bearing : 64% • Kalman(a+d) : 65% IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  22. Conclusion • Kalman Filter provides more accurate results especially non-standard cursor traces • Kalman Filter does not provide better prediction for able-bodied users but requires less memory • Availability of prediction is greater with Kalman Filter • Using distance and angle together provides more robust prediction and higher accuracy • It is possible to provide first correct prediction quicker with Kalman Filter IWPMSA12,NEM SUMMIT, 17/10/2012

  23. Conclusion • Could assist target expansion algorithms • Provide user with a target suggestion • Performances should be investigated for • more complex layouts • pointing devices • effects of target size and distance • more complex process models

More Related