Bringing Online Egocentric Action Recognition into the wild

To enable a safe and effective human-robot cooperation, it is crucial to develop models for the identification of human activities. Egocentric vision seems to be a viable solution to solve this problem, and therefore many works provide deep learning solutions to infer human actions from first person videos. However, although very promising, most of these do not consider the major challenges that comes with a realistic deployment, such as the portability of the model, the need for real-time inference, and the robustness with respect to the novel domains (i.e., new spaces, users, tasks). With this paper, we set the boundaries that egocentric vision models should consider for realistic applications, defining a novel setting of egocentric action recognition in the wild, which encourages researchers to develop novel, applications-aware solutions. We also present a new model-agnostic technique that enables the rapid repurposing of existing architectures in this new context, demonstrating the feasibility to deploy a model on a tiny device (Jetson Nano) and to perform the task directly on the edge with very low energy consumption (2.4W on average at 50 fps)

An Outlook into the Future of Egocentric Vision

What will the future be? We wonder! In this survey, we explore the gap between current research in egocentric vision and the ever-anticipated future, where wearable computing, with outward facing cameras and digital overlays, is expected to be integrated in our every day lives. To understand this gap, the article starts by envisaging the future through character-based stories, showcasing through examples the limitations of current technology. We then provide a mapping between this future and previously defined research tasks. For each task, we survey its seminal works, current state-of-the-art methodologies and available datasets, then reflect on shortcomings that limit its applicability to future research. Note that this survey focuses on software models for egocentric vision, independent of any specific hardware. The paper concludes with recommendations for areas of immediate explorations so as to unlock our path to the future always-on, personalised and life-enhancing egocentric vision.Comment: We invite comments, suggestions and corrections here: https://openreview.net/forum?id=V3974SUk1

E^2(GO)MOTION: Motion Augmented Event Stream for Egocentric Action Recognition

Event cameras are novel bio-inspired sensors, which asynchronously capture pixel-level intensity changes in the form of "events". Due to their sensing mechanism, event cameras have little to no motion blur, a very high temporal resolution and require significantly less power and memory than traditional frame-based cameras. These characteristics make them a perfect fit to several real-world applications such as egocentric action recognition on wearable devices, where fast camera motion and limited power challenge traditional vision sensors. However, the ever-growing field of event-based vision has, to date, overlooked the potential of event cameras in such applications. In this paper, we show that event data is a very valuable modality for egocentric action recognition. To do so, we introduce N-EPIC-Kitchens, the first event-based camera extension of the large-scale EPIC-Kitchens dataset. In this context, we propose two strategies: (i) directly processing event-camera data with traditional video-processing architectures (E$^2$(GO)) and (ii) using event-data to distill optical flow information (E$^2$(GO)MO). On our proposed benchmark, we show that event data provides a comparable performance to RGB and optical flow, yet without any additional flow computation at deploy time, and an improved performance of up to 4% with respect to RGB only information.Comment: To be presented at CVPR202

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used