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 2.

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

Feature Name (Number)a Accuracyb TPc TNd
Relative High Frequency Power (1) 64.713 17.028 68.879
Spectral Edge Frequency 95th Percentile (2) 90.410 97.496 89.791
Skewness (3) 89.820 66.611 91.848
Variance (4) 88.747 98.164 87.925
Kurtosis (5) 86.347 84.641 86.496
Entropy (6) 59.134 96.350 13.419
Mobility (7) 89.311 33.222 94.210
Amplitude 75th Percentile (8) 95.789 94.825 95.873
Complexity (9) 90.585 20.868 96.675
Mean Absolute Amplitude (10) 90.370 97.997 89.704
Curve Length (11) 90.813 98.498 90.141
Energy (12) 88.774 98.164 87.954
Zero Crossing (13) 71.473 54.090 72.991
Non-Linear Energy (14) 92.073 97.997 91.556
Spectral Entropy (15) 97.425 84.641 98.542
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).