Back

Smartphone Placement Recognition during Walking: Performance Determinants and Real-World Generalizability

Tasca, P.; Trentadue, G.; Buckley, E.; Sun, S.; Long, M.; Ireson, N.; Ciravegna, F.; Lanfranchi, V.; Cereatti, A.

2026-05-14 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.05.12.724503 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The opportunity to collect movement data from smartphones for prolonged periods has opened new perspectives in the field of clinical movement analysis. However, when monitoring peoples mobility in free-living conditions, smartphone placement can influence the validity of the extracted digital mobility outcome. This study aimed to develop and validate an automatic smartphone placement recognition classifier and to investigate potential critical factors that can influence performance. The classifier was trained on data from 15 healthy participants using inertial signals collected from smartphones placed at six body placements during free-living walking and externally validated on over 3,000 individuals from external datasets, including blind participants and patients with cardiovascular or Parkinsons disease. A decision-tree ensemble model was developed using feature subsets of increasing dimensionality, with the optimal subset comprising 50 features. Classification accuracy increased consistently when front and back pocket placements were aggregated (81.1%) and further improved when coat pocket was also included in the pocket class (88.5%), underscoring the challenge of distinguishing between fine-grained pocket placements. The best-recognized placements across the external datasets were lower back (precision: 100%, recall: 72.5%), hand (precision: 94.2%, recall: 94.5%), and the aggregated pocket class (precision: 86.7%, recall: 90.2%). Recognition accuracy changed across cohorts (0.73 - 0.85), activities (0.63 - 0.94) and speed (0.79 - 0.87), however it stayed consistent across various technological and environmental factors. Overall, this study demonstrates the feasibility of robust placement recognition in walking and underscores the importance of accounting for key influencing factors when designing frameworks intended for deployment in heterogeneous real-world or clinical contexts. HighlightsO_LIMachine learning accurately identifies smartphone placement during real-world gait C_LIO_LISix on-body placements recognized, including pockets, hand, bag, and lower-back C_LIO_LIFree-living data used for training, ensuring robust performance across conditions C_LIO_LIFeature selection and hyperparameter tuning optimize classification accuracy C_LIO_LIExternal validation confirms generalizability across >3,000 healthy and diseased adults C_LI

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.7%
2
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
50% of probability mass above
3
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.5%
4
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
5
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.1%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
9
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
10
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
13
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.3%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.9%
15
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
16
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
19
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
20
Nature Biomedical Engineering
42 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
21
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
22
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%