Future industrial human activity recognition (HAR) may require discrimination among many operational elements, including movements with partially overlapping kinematics. This controlled pilot study characterized recognition across 22 upper-body movement classes with varying structural similarity and examined classifier, signal scaling, and temporal window length. Sixteen adults performed the movements with an XSENS motion-capture system; eight upper-limb inertial measurement units provided 80 synchronous time-series channels. Thirteen participants were used for model development, and three whose observed execution patterns differed comparatively from the remainder were deliberately reserved as a challenge-oriented holdout. Support vector classifier (SVC), random forest (RF), Gaussian naive Bayes (NB), and long short-term memory (LSTM) models were evaluated with min–max or maximum-absolute scaling and 62-, 93-, or 124-frame windows. RF with maximum-absolute scaling and a 124-frame window achieved the best aggregate holdout performance (accuracy = 0.950; F1 = 0.939). Importantly, this performance was obtained on three entirely unseen participants who were deliberately reserved because their observed execution patterns and fluency differed from those of the model-development participants, providing a controlled, challenge-oriented test of transfer across inter-individual execution variability. Nevertheless, strong aggregate performance did not translate into uniform class-level reliability, and prominent errors remained concentrated in specific movement pairs. These findings provide empirical evidence for both the participant-independent transfer capability and the class-specific limitations of motion-only recognition, supporting its role as a methodological precursor to future AI-assisted work study and human–robot collaboration rather than as evidence of end-to-end industrial HAR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: