Skip to main content
. 2015 Aug 25;12:72. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0060-2

Table 6.

Confusion matrices for the recognition of the activities along with the corresponding validation metrics for the five classifiers expressed in percent

Classification
Lying Sitting Standing Walking SEN SPE PPV NPV F-score CCR
H-FIS
Reference Lying 1022 37 2.8 12.2 95.2 99.7 94.5 99.8 % 94.8 (96.9 ± 5.0) 90.4 (91.4 ± 6.6)
Sitting 37.3 11975 737.1 286.1 91.9 95.5 96.0 90.8 % 93.9 (95.7 ± 8.4)
Standing 22.2 245.3 2066 228.9 80.6 94.3 62.7 97.6 % 70.5 (71.4 ± 11.3)
Walking 0 211 490.9 6667.5 90.5 96.8 92.7 95.8 % 91.6 (91.0 ± 6.0)
FIS-IMUBP
Reference Lying 1022 21.1 17.1 13.8 95.2 99.7 94.5 99.8 % 94.8 (96.9 ± 5.0) 89.4 (89.8 ± 5.9)
Sitting 37.3 11729.9 940.9 327.4 90.0 95.4 95.9 88.9 % 92.8 (93.6 ± 7.0)
Standing 22.2 249.8 2060.6 229.8 80.4 93.4 59.2 97.6 % 68.2 (68.2 ± 14.7)
Walking 0 230.1 461.7 6677.6 90.6 96.6 92.1 95.9 % 91.4 (91.0 ± 6.0)
Event-FIS
Reference Lying 1022 33.4 4.8 13.8 95.2 99.7 94.5 99.8 % 94.8 (96.9 ± 5.0) 81.9 (84.4 ± 12.0)
Sitting 37.3 9829.6 2841.2 327.4 75.4 96.9 96.7 76.9 % 84.7 (86.4 ± 29.5)
Standing 22.2 139.3 2171.1 229.8 84.7 84.3 39.2 97.9 % 53.6 (65.8 ± 36.7)
Walking 0 167.9 523.9 6677.6 90.6 96.6 92.1 95.9 % 91.4 (91.0 ± 6.0)
FIS-IMU
Reference Lying 1022 6.1 32.1 13.8 95.2 99.7 94.5 99.8 % 94.8 (96.9 ± 5.0) 87.1 (86.8 ± 6.2)
Sitting 37.3 11231.1 1439.7 327.4 86.2 95.4 95.7 85.3 % 90.7 (90.2 ± 8.0)
Standing 22.2 301.7 2008.7 229.8 78.4 90.9 50.6 97.2 % 61.5 (62.4 ± 23.0)
Walking 0 201.9 489.9 6677.6 90.6 96.6 92.1 95.9 % 91.4 (91.0 ± 6.0)
EPOCH
Reference Lying 892 120 28 24 83.8 99.3 84.5 99.3 % 84.2 (90.7 ± 12.4) 84.8 (84.0 ± 5.4)
Sitting 124 11980 608 484 90.8 83.1 86.5 88.3 % 88.6 (88.3 ± 10.6)
Standing 40 1264 908 348 35.5 96.3 53.0 92.7 % 42.5 (39.6 ± 15.9)
Walking 0 484 168 6752 91.2 94.9 88.7 96.1 % 90.0 (91.3 ± 6.0)

Each confusion matrix is expressed in seconds

For the CCR and the F-score, the median and interquartile range are provided (computed across patients)

SEN Sensitivity, SPE Specificity, PPV Positive Predictive Value, NPV Negative Predictive Value, CCR Correct Classification Rate