Table 3.
Comparison of SVM accuracy achieved by the proposed bag-level representation.
| Subject | TSGSP | SFBCSP | SFTOFSRC | Proposal | Proposal* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A08T | 95.8 | 97.0 ± 2.9 | 96.9 ± 3.4 | 99.0 ± 1.7 | 99.2 ± 1.6 |
| A09T | 81.3 | 97.8 ± 3.1 | 94.6 ± 3.4 | 98.7 ± 2.1 | 97.3 ± 3.2 |
| A03T | 93.8 | 98.8 ± 1.7 | 98.5 ± 1.9 | 97.7 ± 2.6 | 99.2 ± 1.6 |
| A01T | 87.0 | 91.8 ± 4.7 | 91.8 ± 3.9 | 96.0 ± 1.1 | 94.8 ± 3.5 |
| A05T | 90.4 | 90.6 ± 3.7 | 95.7± 2.1 | 93.0 ± 3.1 | 95.3 ± 4.4 |
| A07T | 91.4 | 94.7 ± 6.1 | 76.3 ± 5.7 | 88.0 ± 4.5 | 96.2 ± 4.6 |
| A06T | 63.9 | 67.9 ± 6.9 | 71.0 ± 6.4 | 74.5 ± 4.8 | 72.4 ± 7.9 |
| A04T | 74.3 | 63.5 ± 10.6 | 69.0 ± 7.1 | 70.3 ± 6.8 | 69.5 ± 9.3 |
| A02T | 64.7 | 58.4 ± 8.3 | 62.8 ± 5.9 | 64.0 ± 5.9 | 66.2 ± 5.3 |
| Average | 82.5 | 84.5 ± 5.3 | 84.0 ± 4.4 | 86.8 ± 3.5 | 87.8 ± 4.6 |
Each method performing the best individual accuracy is marked in bold. Abbreviation Proposal denotes the enhanced representation without optimizing the t-f atoms, while notation * includes this procedure. Each underlined subject achieves confident differences of performance with either proposal version.