Table 10. Comparison to other related approaches.
| Reference | Number of classes (+ NC class) |
FPR (%) |
Accuracy (%) |
Algorithm employed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [23] | 4 (+0) | — | 74.2 | Support Vector Machine |
| [33] | 4 (+0) | — | 64.4 | Hierarchical Support Vector Machine |
| [34] | 4 (+0) | — | 77.6 | Multi-class CSP + Fuzzy System |
| [9] | 2 (+1) | 10 | 83.4 | Support Vector Machine |
| [12] | 2 (+1) | 26.7 / 28.3 | 73 / 75 | ROC Curve Analysis |
| [13] | 1 (+1) | 17 | 72 | Support Vector Machine |
| [14] | 3 (+1) | 19 | 84.3 | Mahalanobis Linear Distance Classifier |
| [35] | 2 (+1) | 21.7 | 73.5 | Correlation-Based |
| [36] | 2 (+1) | 1 | 54 | k-Nearest Neighbour + Linear Discriminant Analysis |
| Our approach | 4 (+1) | 8.2 | 66.6 | K-means + Support Vector Machine |