Table 3.
Classification performance of the proposed approach compared with the relevant CNN-based methods.
Methods | Input Length | Network | Validation | F1N | F1A | F1O | F1P | F1_NAO | F_NAOP | Visual Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[56] | 30 s | ResNet (34 layers) | 5-fold CV | 90.2 | 65.7 | 69.8 | 64.0 | 75.2 | 72.4 | None |
[57] | N/A | 2D CNN with LSTM layer | 5-fold CV | 88.8 | 76.4 | 72.6 | 64.5 | 79.2 | 75.58 | None |
[54] | 9, 15 s | DenseNet | 5-fold CV | 91 | 80 | 76 | N/A | 82 | N/A | None |
[55] | 9–61 s | 16-layer 1D residual CRNN | 5-fold CV | 91.9 | 85.8 | 81.6 | N/A | 86.4 | N/A | None |
[52] | 30 s | 1D CNN | 5-fold CV | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 82.2 | 78.2 | None |
[53] | 60.5 s | Modified ResNet | 8:1:1 split | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 79.59 | N/A | Included |
[58] | 9–61 s | Dense18+ for spectrogram | 10-fold CV | 89.29 | 79.18 | 72.25 | 52.50 | 80.24 | 73.31 | Included |
Proposed | 9–61 s | Proposed BIT-CNN | 5-fold CV | 89.73 | 81.06 | 74.45 | 62.22 | 81.75 | 76.87 | Included |