Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Cole plot and frequency bands definition.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

BIS measurements (solid red line) containing the 6 identified types of measurement errors plotted in the impedance plane. Estimations of the clean measurements are represented by dashed blue lines.

Type-A error (A), Type-B error (B), Type-C error (C), Type-D error (D), Type-E error (E), Type-F error (F).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Relationship between spectral immittance components.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Immittance components computation.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Steps to calculate the true and fitted spectral immittance components.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Proposed features for BIS measurement classification.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Classes definition: all-at-once approach.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Classes definition: divide and conquer approach.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Distribution of the BIS experimental measurements included in the database.

Distribution per application (A), distribution per measurement type (B).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Mean and standard deviation (5 folds) of the classification error (%) obtained by the feature selection algorithm for different values of NFEAT in the all-at-once approach (7 classes).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 5.

Selected features with NFEAT = 7 in the two classification approaches.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Confusion matrix in all-at-once approach.

Classification error of 5.7%.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Mean and standard deviation (5 folds) of the classification error (%) obtained by the feature selection algorithm for different values of NFEAT in the divide and conquer approach (5 classes).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 7.

Confusion matrix in divide and conquer approach, step 1.

Classification error of 0.17%.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Confusion matrix in divide and conquer approach, step 2 (BC).

Classification error of 0.93%.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Fig 8.

Feature f4 for samples of Type-B error and Type-C error in (A) and feature f8 for samples of Type-E error and Type-F error in (B). Samples are taken from different BIS applications.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 9.

Confusion matrix in divide and conquer approach, step 2 (EF).

Classification error of 0%.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Classification error of the two proposed approaches with NFEAT = 7.

More »

Table 10 Expand