Table 3.
Comparison results of different frameworks for recognizing 12 rehabilitation movements.
| Methods | LDA [14] | SVM [48] | G_CNN [49] | LCNN [26] | Proposed Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| subject 1, subject 2 | 80.26% | 85.03% | 85.29% | 80.11% | 86.10% |
| subject 3, subject 4 | 52.43% | 60.29% | 62.59% | 65.29% | 65.11% |
| subject 5, subject 9 | 70.21% | 72.98% | 78.39% | 75.22% | 79.37% |
| subject 6, subject 10 | 65.16% | 69.26% | 75.00% | 70.92% | 77.78% |
| subject 3, subject 9 | 59.98% | 65.53% | 65.39% | 65.98% | 65.89% |
| subject 1, subject 4 | 70.56% | 72.20% | 75.65% | 74.61% | 77.39% |
| subject 7, subject 10 | 60.92% | 60.89% | 61.85% | 61.79% | 62.78% |
| subject 2, subject 5 | 78.23% | 78.29% | 80.59% | 85.49% | 85.10% |
| subject 6, subject 7 | 62.51% | 64.93% | 65.29% | 63.46% | 66.56% |
| subject 7, subject 9 | 61.09% | 69.22% | 67.92% | 62.34% | 68.83% |
| AVE | 66.14% | 69.86% | 71.80% | 70.52% | 73.49% |