Energy Optimization for Outdoor Activity Recognition

<div>The impact of varying <svg height="12.7178pt" id="M231" style="vertical-align:-3.42947pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -9.28833 15.7173 12.7178" width="15.7173pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M558 587C558 666 497 712 432 712C379 712 330 691 284 650C212 586 178 508 148 348L71 -65C49 -185 35 -229 23 -235L27 -261C49 -259 101 -251 124 -224C131 -216 138 -178 159 -24C171 66 197 200 227 356C264 550 295 668 393 668C443 668 479 632 479 575C479 516 446 458 383 418C361 404 344 398 318 397L296 350C395 338 460 281 460 192C460 110 411 40 300 40C258 40 215 55 192 69L181 51C191 18 222 -16 266 -16C308 -16 351 1 397 26C471 67 545 142 545 221C545 315 486 365 401 395C469 437 558 498 558 587Z" id="g113-224"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="581" vert-adv-y="581"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,7.228,3.132)"><path d="M303 37L293 66C280 59 256 49 231 49S173 63 173 143V396H281C294 404 298 428 287 439H173V575L158 577L92 509V439H46L17 408L22 396H92V107C92 27 128 -12 192 -12C203 -12 218 -9 237 2L303 37Z" id="g58-114"></path><glyph.data ascent="1007" descent="-369" horiz-adv-x="312" vert-adv-y="312"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,10.113,3.132)"><path d="M522 0V30C462 35 455 41 455 106V280C455 397 397 451 314 451C262 451 206 414 171 379V710C131 698 69 682 20 675V647C87 642 90 637 90 574V106C90 41 80 35 20 30V0H236V30C176 35 171 43 171 106V339C198 371 237 391 276 391C341 391 374 350 374 269V106C374 43 367 35 308 30V0H522Z" id="g58-102"></path><glyph.data ascent="1007" descent="-369" horiz-adv-x="544" vert-adv-y="544"></glyph.data></g></svg> on the accuracy.</div>

Journal of Sensors

Energy Optimization for Outdoor Activity Recognition

Figure 15