Table 13 Performance comparison of RP + MFCC and RP + GFCC unimodal systems over stand-alone nonlinear (RP) and linear (MFCC and GFCC) systems. Note that stand-alone systems over MFCC repeated here for comparison.
Feature | Air | Bone | Throat | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | |
RP | 96.22 ± 0.12 | 94.43 ± 0.28 | 96.43 ± 0.08 | 95.58 ± 0.04 | 96.04 ± 0.08 | 95.73 ± 0.15 |
MFCC | 91.20 ± 0.04 | 86.97 ± 0.01 | 90.12 ± 0 | 87.48 ± 0.02 | 98.91 ± 0.03 | 96.25 ± 0.05 |
GFCC | 81.67 ± 1.5 | 84.85 ± 1.2 | 65.693 ± 1.2 | 80.29 ± 1.8 | 82.29 ± 0.42 | 85.08 ± 0.48 |
MFCC + RP | 96.22 ± 0.16 | 94.43 ± 0.20 | 96.43 ± 0.08 | 95.58 ± 0.14 | 96.04 ± 0.10 | 95.73 ± 0.06 |
GFCC + RP | 86.71 ± 0.31 | 82.37 ± 0.53 | 91.08 ± 0.14 | 89.04 ± 0.58 | 85.94 ± 0.72 | 82.25 ± 0.48 |
MFCC + GFCC | 92.969 ± 0.08 | 94.07 ± 0.12 | 96.10 ± 0.04 | 96.18 ± 0.04 | 97.26 ± 0.1 | 96.50 ± 0.2 |
