## 3 Experiments and Results
### New Combinations of Signals Using Four Common Methods
#### 3.3.5 Discussion of Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & **S1** & **S2** & **S3** & **S4** & **S5** & **Avg** & **Std** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline CSP (C3,C4,C2) & 54.28 & 80.00 & 55.00 & 70.00 & 87.14 & 69.28 & 14.69 & - \\ CSP-Ref & 90.36 & 98.36 & 76.64 & 98.64 & 94.50 & 91.70 & 8.11 & 0.0049 \\ CSP & 81.93 & 98.64 & 74.00 & 97.07 & 92.86 & 88.90 & 9.46 & 0.0034 \\ CSSP & 87.07 & 95.71 & 74.86 & 98.07 & 94.86 & 90.11 & 8.47 & 0.0039 \\ CSSSP1 & 90.79 & 99.11 & 75.79 & 99.57 & 94.21 & 91.89 & 8.68 & 0.0040 \\ CSSSP2 & 91.00 & 98.93 & 76.14 & 99.07 & 93.86 & 91.80 & 8.41 & 0.0041 \\ SPEC-CSP & 83.93 & 99.21 & 72.50 & 98.93 & 92.36 & 89.30 & 10.11 & 0.0036 \\ FBCSP1 & 90.64 & 98.93 & 66.29 & 98.50 & 96.07 & 90.09 & 12.26 & 0.0035 \\ FBCSP2 & 89.29 & 99.07 & 69.79 & 98.71 & 95.64 & 90.50 & 10.93 & 0.0034 \\ FBCSP3 & 88.21 & 98.93 & 72.93 & 99.00 & 95.43 & 90.90 & 9.81 & 0.0034 \\ DFBCSP1 & 92.29 & 99.29 & 78.07 & 99.29 & 95.07 & 92.80 & 7.83 & 0.0040 \\ DFBCSP2 & 91.00 & 99.14 & 76.43 & 99.57 & 95.64 & 92.36 & 8.54 & 0.0037 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Evaluation of the best accuracy of the results of different methods with the best average accuracy of the combined signals of the filter banks for the hand and foot. Figure 28: (**Left**) Evaluation of the best kappa values for different methods with a new combination of signals from the right and left hands. (**Right**) Evaluation of the best kappa values of different methods with a new combination of signals from the hand and foot. Table 16 compares the best accuracies of results obtained for the hand and foot with different methods [105] of CSP with/without filter banks with our proposed method (new signals with CSP). The results obtained with LDA with the highest accuracy value (97.94%) compared to the previous methods mentioned in Table 15 show an advantage of between 5% and 9%. In total, the highest accuracy value (98.94%) is very good for this database with five subjects. For Subject 4, LDA with the new signal obtains the highest accuracy value (98.92%) with statistical significance (\(p\)-value = 0.0107, \(p\)-value < 0.05). In comparing the new signal with CSP using LDA to common spatial pattern (CSP), common spatial-spectral pattern (CSSP), and CSSSP (common sparse spectral-spatial pattern), the accuracy is improved by 6%. All of the methods are statistically significant (\(p\)-value < 0.005). The results of our method are similar to those of other methods, with small differences. Table 17 shows the comparison of the best kappa results obtained for the left and right hands with different CSP methods [105], which are considered for all or some channels. Subject 1 achieved the best kappa value with CSP and 8.55 and 13.22 channels. Subject 2 with our proposed method and ELM and Subject 3 with our proposed method and LDA achieved the best kappa values. The best average kappa was obtained by the new combination of signals with LDA (68.6%). In an overview of subjects, it is deduced that Subjects 2 and 5 have the lowest kappa values, and Subjects 3 and 8 have the highest kappa values.