Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biomed Signal Process Control. 2012 Mar 28;7(6):606–615. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2012.02.003

Table 1.

Accuracy (% agreement) for Consensus Visual Scoring (left leg)

Feature Name (Number)a Accuracyb TPc TNd
Relative High Frequency Power (1) 63.530 13.849 66.917
Spectral Edge Frequency 95th Percentile (2) 91.838 95.723 91.573
Skewness (3) 89.862 68.839 91.295
Variance (4) 90.265 97.352 89.782
Kurtosis (5) 88.316 83.707 88.629
Entropy (6) 45.646 50.917 45.287
Mobility (7) 89.537 45.214 92.559
Amplitude 75th Percentile (8) 96.829 91.853 97.168
Complexity (9) 91.786 20.774 96.626
Mean Absolute Amplitude (10) 92.228 96.945 91.906
Curve Length (11) 92.488 97.759 92.128
Energy (12) 90.265 97.352 89.782
Zero Crossing (13) 73.447 56.823 74.580
Non-Linear Energy (14) 92.995 97.556 92.684
Spectral Entropy (15) 94.957 86.354 95.544
a

Relevant formulae are shown in parentheses (see text)

b

Accuracy = % of correct phasic and non-phasic GMM predictions compared to consensus visual scoring

c

TP = true positives (% of seconds with phasic activity assessed visually that were correctly classified by the GMM for that feature)

d

TN = true negatives (% of seconds without phasic activity assessed visually that were correctly classified by the GMM for that feature).