Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Mar 6.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2016 Jul 30;141:399–407. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.058

Table 4.

Comparison on classification performance and the number of involved features for 4 different methods. The last column shows the mean±standard deviation of the feature numbers used in all 91 LOO runs. The bold numbers indicate the best results for the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, respectively.

Method Accuracy (%) Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) #Features
Pearson’s correlation (PC) 69.23 71.11 67.39 45.1 ± 8.0
Sparse representation (SR) 71.43 71.11 71.74 60.4 ± 7.9
Low-rank (LR) 79.12 80.00 78.26 62.5 ± 4.0
Sparse low-rank (SLR) 89.01 86.67 91.30 72.4 ± 3.3