Table 3.

SpaMA algorithm performance comparison.

Subject	Dataset	Activity Type	TROIKA		JOSS		WFPV		SpaMA
			E1	E2%	E1	E2%	E1	E2%	E1	E2%
1			2.87	2.18	1.33	1.19	1.23	-	1.23	1.14
2			2.75	2.37	1.75	1.66	1.26	-	1.59	1.30
3			1.91	1.50	1.47	1.27	0.72	-	0.57	0.45
4			2.25	2.00	1.48	1.41	0.98	-	0.44	0.31
5			1.69	1.22	0.69	0.51	0.75	-	0.47	0.31
6			3.16	2.51	1.32	1.09	0.91	-	0.61	0.45
7			1.72	1.27	0.71	0.54	0.67	-	0.54	0.40
8			1.83	1.47	0.56	0.47	0.91	-	0.40	0.33
9			1.58	1.28	0.49	0.41	0.54	-	0.40	0.32
10			4.00	2.49	3.81	2.43	2.61	-	2.63	1.59
11			1.96	1.29	0.78	0.51	0.94	-	0.64	0.42
12			3.33	2.30	1.04	0.81	0.98	-	1.20	0.86
mean ± std			2.42 ± 0.8	1.82 ± 0.5	1.28 ± 0.9	1.02 ± 0.6	1.04 ± 0.5	-	0.89 ± 0.6	0.65 ± 0.4
13	2 (IEEE Cup)	Type (2)					3.58	-	3.41	4.25
14							9.66	-	7.29	9.80
15							2.31	-	2.73	2.21
16		Type (3)					4.93	-	3.18	2.11
17							3.07	-	3.01	2.52
18							2.67	-	4.46	3.23
19							3.11	-	3.58	3.98
20		Type (2)					2.10	-	1.94	1.66
21		Type (3)					3.22	-	2.56	2.02
22							4.35	-	3.12	3.28
23		Type (2)					0.75	-	1.72	1.97
mean ± std							3.61 ± 2.2	-	3.36 ± 1.5	3.33 ± 2.2
Type (1,2) mean ± std							2.27 ± 2.0	-	1.93 ± 2.0	2.07 ± 1.7
24	3 (Chon Lab)	Type (4)							0.88	0.91
25									1.03	0.83
26									1.10	0.90
27									1.64	1.54
28									1.41	1.12
29									0.82	0.70
30									0.63	0.58
31									4.78	3.87
32									0.95	0.79
33									0.62	0.52
mean ± std									1.38 ± 1.2	1.17 ± 1.0
Total: mean ± std									1.86 ± 1.6	1.70 ± 1.8