Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Applying Machine Learning for Sensor Data Analysis in Interactive Systems: Common Pitfalls of Pragmatic Use and Ways to Avoid Them

Published: 13 July 2021 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    With the widespread proliferation of (miniaturized) sensing facilities and the massive growth and popularity of the field of machine learning (ML) research, new frontiers in automated sensor data analysis have been explored that lead to paradigm shifts in many application domains. In fact, many practitioners now employ and rely more and more on ML methods as integral part of their sensor data analysis workflows—thereby not necessarily being ML experts or having an interest in becoming one. The availability of toolkits that can readily be used by practitioners has led to immense popularity and widespread adoption and, in essence, pragmatic use of ML methods. ML having become mainstream helps pushing the core agenda of practitioners, yet it comes with the danger of misusing methods and as such running the risk of leading to misguiding if not flawed results.
    Based on years of observations in the ubiquitous and interactive computing domain that extensively relies on sensors and automated sensor data analysis, and on having taught and worked with numerous students in the field, in this article I advocate a considerate use of ML methods by practitioners, i.e., non-ML experts, and elaborate on pitfalls of an overly pragmatic use of ML techniques. The article not only identifies and illustrates the most common issues, it also offers ways and practical guidelines to avoid these, which shall help practitioners to benefit from employing ML in their core research domains and applications.

    References

    [1]
    Martín Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Dan Mané, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek Murray, Chris Olah, Mike Schuster, Jonathon Shlens, Benoit Steiner, Ilya Sutskever, Kunal Talwar, Paul Tucker, Vincent Vanhoucke, Vijay Vasudevan, Fernanda Viegas, Oriol Vinyals, Pete Warden, Martin Wattenberg, Martin Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang Zheng.2015. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. Retrieved from http://tensorflow.org/.
    [2]
    Gregory D. Abowd. 2012. What next, Ubicomp? Celebrating an intellectual disappearing act. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’12).
    [3]
    Sylvain Arlot, Alain Celisse, et al. 2010. A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statist. Surv. 4 (2010), 40--79.
    [4]
    Horace B. Barlow. 1989. Unsupervised learning. Neural Comput. 1, 3 (1989), 295--311.
    [5]
    Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. 2013. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35, 8 (2013), 1798--1828.
    [6]
    Christophe Biernacki, Gilles Celeux, and Gerard Govaert. 2003. Choosing starting values for the EM algorithm for getting the highest likelihood in multivariate Gaussian mixture models.Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 41, 3--4 (2003), 561--575.
    [7]
    Christopher M. Bishop. 2006. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer.
    [8]
    David R. Brillinger. 2001. Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory. SIAM.
    [9]
    A. J. Bernheim Brush. 2010. Ubiquitous computing field studies. In Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals, John Krumm (Ed.). CRC Press, 161--202.
    [10]
    Andreas Bulling, U. Blanke, and Bernt Schiele. 2014. A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors. Comput. Surv. 46, 3 (Jan. 2014).
    [11]
    Rich Caruana and Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil. 2006. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning. 161--168.
    [12]
    R. Chavarriaga, H. Sagha, and D. Roggen. 2013. The opportunity challenge: A benchmark database for on-body sensor-based activity recognition. Pattern Recog. Lett. 34, 15 (2013), 2033--2042.
    [13]
    L. Chen, J. Hoey, C. D. Nugent, D. J. Cook, and Z. Yu. 2012. Sensor-based activity recognition. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. Part C: Applic. Rev. 42, 6 (2012), 790--808.
    [14]
    Charlie Chung. 2014. If You’ve Got Data, Mine It Yourself: Ian Witten on Data Mining, Weka, and his MOOC. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/data-mining-weka-waikato/.
    [15]
    Gabe Cohn, Sidhant Gupta, Jon Froehlich, Eric C. Larson, and Shwetak N. Patel. 2010. GasSense - Appliance-level, single-point sensing of gas activity in the home. InProceedings of the International Conference on Pervasive Computing (Pervasive’10). LNCS, Vol 6030, 265--282.
    [16]
    Janez Demšar, Tomaž Curk, Aleš Erjavec, Črt Gorup, Tomaž Hočevar, Mitar Milutinovič, Martin Možina, Matija Polajnar, Marko Toplak, Anže Starič, et al. 2013. Orange: Data mining toolbox in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 14, 1 (2013), 2349--2353.
    [17]
    Anind K. Dey. 2001. Understanding and using context. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 5, 1 (2001), 4--7.
    [18]
    Aiden Doherty, Dan Jackson, Nils Hammerla, Thomas Ploetz, Patrick Olivier, Malcolm H. Granat, Tom White, Vincent T. van Hees, Michael I. Trenell, Christoper G. Owen, Stephen J. Preece, Rob Gillions, Simon Sheard, Tim Peakman, Soren Brage, and Nicholas J. Wareham. 2017. Large scale population assessment of physical activity using wrist worn accelerometers: The UK biobank study. PLoS One 12, 2 (Feb. 2017).
    [19]
    Pedro Domingos. 1999. The role of Occam’s razor in knowledge discovery. Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 3, 4 (1999), 409--425.
    [20]
    Pedro M. Domingos. 2012. A few useful things to know about machine learning.Commun. ACM 55, 10 (2012), 78.
    [21]
    Dheeru Dua and Casey Graff. 2017. UCI Machine Learning Repository. Retrieved from http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml.
    [22]
    Frank Eibe, Mark A. Hall, and Ian H. Witten. 2016. The WEKA workbench. Online appendix for data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. In Morgan Kaufmann (4th ed.). Retrieved on May 27, 2021 from https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/Witten_et_al_2016_appendix.pdf.
    [23]
    Katayoun Farrahi and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2011. Discovering routines from large-scale human locations using probabilistic topic models. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2, 1 (Jan. 2011), 1--27.
    [24]
    Jon Froehlich, Eric C. Larson, Tim Campbell, Conor Haggerty, James Fogarty, and Shwetak N. Patel. 2009. HydroSense - Infrastructure-mediated single-point sensing of whole-home water activity. InProceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’09). 235--244.
    [25]
    Leilani H. Gilpin, David Bau, Ben Z. Yuan, Ayesha Bajwa, Michael Specter, and Lalana Kagal. 2018. Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA’18). IEEE, 80--89.
    [26]
    Yu Guan and Thomas Ploetz. 2017. Ensembles of Deep LSTM learners for activity recognition using wearables. Proc. ACM Interact., Mob., Wear. Ubiq. Technol. 1, 2 (June 2017).
    [27]
    Nils Hammerla, James Fisher, Peter Andras, Lynn Rochester, Richard Walker, and Thomas Ploetz. 2015. PD disease state assessment in naturalistic environments using deep learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15).
    [28]
    Nils Hammerla, Shane Halloran, and Thomas Ploetz. 2016. Deep, convolutional, and recurrent models for human activity recognition using wearables. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16).
    [29]
    Nils Hammerla, Reuben Kirkham, Peter Andras, and Thomas Ploetz. 2013. On preserving statistical characteristics of accelerometry data using their empirical cumulative distribution. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computing (ISWC’13).
    [30]
    Nils Y. Hammerla and Thomas Ploetz. 2015. Let’s (not) stick together: Pairwise similarity biases cross-validation in activity recognition. In Proceedings of the ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing.
    [31]
    Harish Haresamudram, David V. Anderson, and Thomas Plötz. 2019. On the role of features in human activity recognition. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computing (ISWC’19). 78--88.
    [32]
    Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer.
    [33]
    Jeffrey Hightower and Gaetano Borriello. 2001. Location systems for ubiquitous computing. IEEE Comput. 34, 8 (2001), 57--66.
    [34]
    T. Hill and P. Lewicki. 2007. STATISTICS: Methods and Applications. StatSoft, Tulsa, OK.
    [35]
    Martin Höst, Björn Regnell, and Claes Wohlin. 2000. Using students as subjects -- A comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empir. Softw. Eng. 5, 3 (2000), 201--214.
    [36]
    Nitin Indurkhya and Fred J. Damerau. 2010. Handbook of Natural Language Processing. Vol. 2. CRC Press.
    [37]
    Julie A. Jacko. 2012. Human Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. CRC Press.
    [38]
    A. K. Jain and B. Chandrasekaran. 1982. 39 Dimensionality and sample size considerations in pattern recognition practice. In Classification Pattern Recognition and Reduction of Dimensionality. Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 2. Elsevier, 835--855.
    [39]
    Frederick Jelinek. 2005. Some of my best friends are linguists. Lang. Resour. Eval. 39, 1 (Feb. 2005), 25--34.
    [40]
    Reuben Kirkham, Aftab Khan, Sourav Bhattacharya, Nils Hammerla, Sebastian Mellor, Daniel Roggen, and Thomas Ploetz. 2013. Automatic correction of annotation boundaries in activity datasets by class separation maximization. Adjunct Proceedings of the International Conference Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’13) -- HASCA workshop.
    [41]
    John Krumm. 2018. Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals. CRC Press.
    [42]
    John Krumm and Dany Rouhana. 2013. Placer: Semantic place Labels from diary data. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 163--172.
    [43]
    Hyeokhyen Kwon, Gregory D. Abowd, and Thomas Plötz. 2019. Handling annotation uncertainty in human activity recognition. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computing (ISWC’19). 109--117.
    [44]
    Hyeokhyen Kwon, Catherine Tong, Harish Haresamudram, Yan Gao, Gregory D. Abowd, Nicholas D. Lane, and Thomas Plötz. 2020. IMUTube: Automatic extraction of virtual on-body accelerometry from video for human activity recognition. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wear. Ubiq. Technol. 4, 3 (Sept. 2020).
    [45]
    Nicholas D. Lane, Sourav Bhattacharya, Petko Georgiev, Claudio Forlivesi, Lei Jiao, Lorena Qendro, and Fahim Kawsar. 2016. DeepX: A software accelerator for low-power deep learning inference on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN’16). IEEE, 1--12.
    [46]
    H. Li, G. Abowd, and T. Ploetz. 2018. On specialized window lengths and detector based human activity recognition. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computing (ISWC’18).
    [47]
    Henar Martín, Ana M. Bernardos, Josué Iglesias, and José R. Casar. 2013. Activity logging using lightweight classification techniques in mobile devices. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 17, 4 (2013), 675--695.
    [48]
    A. H. Maslow. 1966. The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance.Harper & Row.
    [49]
    MATLAB. 2010. version 7.10.0 (R2010a). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA. http://citebay.com/how-to-cite/matlab/.
    [50]
    Mary L. McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 22, 3 (Oct. 2012), 276--282.
    [51]
    Rupert G. Miller. 1981. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. Springer.
    [52]
    Tom M. Mitchell. 1997. Machine Learning. McGraw Hill.
    [53]
    Tudor Miu, Paolo Missier, and Thomas Ploetz. 2015. Bootstrapping personalised human activity recognition models using online active learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conferences on Ubiquitous Computing & Communications (IUCC’15).
    [54]
    Sendhil Mullainathan and Jann Spiess. 2017. Machine learning: An applied econometric approach. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 2 (2017), 87--106.
    [55]
    Robert Nishihara, Philipp Moritz, Stephanie Wang, Alexey Tumanov, William Paul, Johann Schleier-Smith, Richard Liaw, Mehrdad Niknami, Michael I. Jordan, and Ion Stoica. 2017. Real-time machine learning: The missing pieces. In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems. 106--110.
    [56]
    Richard O. Duda, Peter E. Hart, and David G. Stork. 2001. Pattern Classification (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience.
    [57]
    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 8024--8035. Retrieved from http://papers.neurips.cc/paper/9015-pytorch-an-imperative-style-high-perf ormance-deep-learning-library.pdf.
    [58]
    Shwetak N. Patel, Thomas Robertson, Julie A. Kientz, Matthew S. Reynolds, and Gregory D. Abowd. 2007. At the flick of a switch -- Detecting and classifying unique electrical events on the residential power line. InProceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’07). 271--288.
    [59]
    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (2011), 2825--2830.
    [60]
    T. Ploetz and Yu Guan. 2018. Deep learning for human activity recognition in mobile computing. IEEE Comput. 51, 5 (2018), 50--59.
    [61]
    Thomas Ploetz, Nils Hammerla, and Patrick Olivier. 2011. Feature learning for activity recognition in ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11) (2011).
    [62]
    David Martin Powers. 2011. Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. J. Mach. Learn. Technol. 2, 1 (Dec. 2011), 37--63.
    [63]
    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2001. Occam’s razor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 294--300.
    [64]
    A. Reiss and D. Stricker. 2012. Introducing a new benchmarked dataset for activity monitoring. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computing (ISWC’12).
    [65]
    Nicu Sebe, Ira Cohen, Ashutosh Garg, and Thomas S. Huang. 2005. Machine Learning in Computer Vision. Vol. 29. Springer Science & Business Media.
    [66]
    Philip Sedgwick and Nan Greenwood. 2015. Understanding the Hawthorne Effect. BMJ 351 (2015), h4672.
    [67]
    Emilie Shireman, Douglas Steinley, and Michael J. Brusco. 2015. Examining the effect of initialization strategies on the performance of Gaussian mixture modeling. Behav. Res. Meth. 49, 1 (Dec. 2015), 282--293.
    [68]
    Niall Twomey, Tom Diethe, Xenofon Fafoutis, Atis Elsts, Ryan McConville, Peter Flach, and Ian Craddock. 2018. A comprehensive study of activity recognition using accelerometers. Informatics 5, 2 (June 2018), 27--38.
    [69]
    Athanasios Voulodimos, Nikolaos Doulamis, Anastasios Doulamis, and Eftychios Protopapadakis. 2018. Deep learning for computer vision: A brief review. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2018, Article 7068349 (2018).
    [70]
    Kiri L. Wagstaff. 2012. Machine learning that matters. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’12).
    [71]
    Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T. Kwok, and Lionel M. Ni. 2020. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 3 (2020), 1--34.
    [72]
    Jamie A. Ward, Paul Lukowicz, and Hans W. Gellersen. 2011. Performance metrics for activity recognition. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2, 1 (Jan. 2011), 1--23.
    [73]
    M. Weiser. 1991. The computer for the 21st century. Sci. Amer. 265, 3 (1991).
    [74]
    Ian H. Witten, Eibe Frank, Mark A. Hall, and Christopher J. Pal. 2016. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Elsevier.
    [75]
    F. Zafari, A. Gkelias, and Kin K. Leung. 2019. A survey of indoor localization systems and technologies. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 21, 3 (2019), 2568--2599.
    [76]
    Alice Zheng. 2015. Evaluating Machine Learning Models. O’Reilly Media.
    [77]
    Xiaojin Zhu and Andrew B. Goldberg. 2009. Introduction to semi-supervised learning. Synth. Lect. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. 3, 1 (2009), 1--130.
    [78]
    Xiaojin Jerry Zhu. 2005. Semi-supervised Learning Literature Survey. Technical Report. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Developing a machine learning-based flood risk prediction model for the Indus Basin in PakistanWater Practice & Technology10.2166/wpt.2024.15119:6(2213-2225)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Spatial-Temporal Masked Autoencoder for Multi-Device Wearable Human Activity RecognitionProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36314157:4(1-25)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
    • (2024)ConverSense: An Automated Approach to Assess Patient-Provider Interactions using Social SignalsProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641998(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. Applying Machine Learning for Sensor Data Analysis in Interactive Systems: Common Pitfalls of Pragmatic Use and Ways to Avoid Them

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image ACM Computing Surveys
          ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 54, Issue 6
          Invited Tutorial
          July 2022
          799 pages
          ISSN:0360-0300
          EISSN:1557-7341
          DOI:10.1145/3475936
          Issue’s Table of Contents
          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 13 July 2021
          Accepted: 01 March 2021
          Revised: 01 January 2021
          Received: 01 October 2020
          Published in CSUR Volume 54, Issue 6

          Permissions

          Request permissions for this article.

          Check for updates

          Author Tags

          1. Sensor data analysis
          2. machine learning applications

          Qualifiers

          • Research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)627
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16
          Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2024)Developing a machine learning-based flood risk prediction model for the Indus Basin in PakistanWater Practice & Technology10.2166/wpt.2024.15119:6(2213-2225)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2024
          • (2024)Spatial-Temporal Masked Autoencoder for Multi-Device Wearable Human Activity RecognitionProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36314157:4(1-25)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
          • (2024)ConverSense: An Automated Approach to Assess Patient-Provider Interactions using Social SignalsProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641998(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
          • (2024) Bioinspired High-Linearity, Wide-Sensing-Range Flexible Stretchable Bioelectronics Based on MWCNTs/GR/Nd 2 Fe 14 B/PDMS Nanocomposites for Human-Computer Interaction and Biomechanics Detection ACS Sensors10.1021/acssensors.4c00664Online publication date: 24-Jul-2024
          • (2024)ReFuSeActInformation Fusion10.1016/j.inffus.2023.102044102:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024
          • (2024)Self-supervised learning with randomized cross-sensor masked reconstruction for human activity recognitionEngineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107478128:COnline publication date: 14-Mar-2024
          • (2024)Research on badminton take-off recognition method based on improved deep learningJournal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing10.1007/s12652-024-04809-8Online publication date: 28-May-2024
          • (2023)Interactive modeling of painting art communication structure from the perspective of integrated mediaJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems10.3233/JIFS-23428445:6(10053-10062)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2023
          • (2023)Challenges in Using Skin Conductance Responses for Assessments of Information Worker ProductivityProceedings of the 2023 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers10.1145/3594738.3611360(33-38)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2023
          • (2023)If only we had more data!: Sensor-Based Human Activity Recognition in Challenging Scenarios2023 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops and other Affiliated Events (PerCom Workshops)10.1109/PerComWorkshops56833.2023.10150267(565-570)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
          • Show More Cited By

          View Options

          Get Access

          Login options

          Full Access

          View options

          PDF

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format.

          HTML Format

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media