Table 3.
The performance comparison of different methods in comparative experiments.
| Category | Method | Feature type | Type of input image | Fusion | Correct ratio (%) | Computation cost | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional machine learning | Naïve Bayes | Hand-crafted features (Color + Shape + orientation) | RGB | Feature fusion | 52.3 | 5.951 | The approach in [10] |
| Bayesian logistic regression | 62.3 | 5.951 | |||||
| RBF network | 53.8 | 5.951 | |||||
| AD tree | 71.5 | 5.952 | |||||
| Random forest | 70.8 | 5.951 | |||||
| Voted perceptron | 71.5 | 5.954 | |||||
| Bagging | 64.6 | 5.951 | |||||
| Rotation forest | 70.8 | 5.955 | |||||
| LWL | 61.5 | 5.992 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| Deep learning | Convolution neural network | Automatically extracted features | HSV | 69.2 | 0.020 | Designed for comparison | |
| RGB | 70.8 | 0.029 | |||||
| Depth | 71.5 | 0.017 | |||||
| HSV + RGB + Depth | Input fusion | 74.6 | 0.052 | ||||
| HSV + RGB + Depth | Feature fusion | 82.3 | 0.103 | Our approach | |||