Table 14 Performance comparison of RP + MFCC and RP + GFCC bimodal 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 | Bone–throat | Air–throat | Air–bone–throat | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | Val_Acc% | Test_Acc% | |
RP | 97.05 ± 0.19 | 97.35 ± 0.07 | 97.90 ± 0.22 | 97.56 ± 0.1 | 98.14 ± 0.38 | 98.21 ± 0.14 | 99.92 ± 0.2 | 99.84 ± 0.03 |
MFCC + RP | 97.05 ± 0.02 | 97.35 ± 0.01 | 97.91 ± 0.04 | 97.56 ± 0.24 | 98.14 ± 0.33 | 98.21 ± 0.47 | 99.38± 0.14 | 99.53 ± 0.05 |
GFCC + RP | 92.56 ± 0.32 | 91.77 ± 0.87 | 93.45 ± 0.61 | 93.54 ± 0.16 | 89.31 ± 0.72 | 88.78 ± 0.52 | 93.66 ± 0.19 | 93.97 ± 0.38 |
MFCC + GFCC | 97.89 ± 0.30 | 97.47 ± 0.27 | 99.09 ± 0.01 | 98.44 ± 0.06 | 94.76 ± 0.22 | 96.11 ± 0.16 | 98.43 ± 0.11 | 98.57 ± 0.04 |
