Three existing studies have already performed an evaluation and comparison of Object-NoSQL Database Mappers.
Table 1 Comparison of object detection methods in terms of accuracy and computational time Methods Accuracy Computational time Comments Background subtraction Mixture of Gaussian model [2 10] Moderate Moderate Simple implementation and good performance but not so well with dynamic background.
Table 3 Comparison of object classification methods in terms of accuracy and computational time Methods Accuracy Computational time Comments Shape-based method [18, 23, 38 43, 85] Moderate Low Simple pattern-matching approach can be applied with appropriate templates.
Even such a case, the results of the comparison of object selectivity at the level of single cells, MUs, and averaged MUs could be explained to some extent.
Based on the comparison of object selectivity at the levels of single cells, MUs, and averaged MUs, we have suggested the existence of a common property among the cells in activity spots.
To date, the only indirect information regarding this issue comes from comparisons of objects with two-dimensional representations, which are limited to studies concerned with picture object equivalence (see Fagot, 2000; and for a thorough review: Bovet & Vauclair, 2000; Weisman & Spetch, 2010).
The comparisons of object labeling on Polo and TUD are listed in Tables 3 and 4. According to these tables, our method performs better than that of He and Gould [15] in the four metrics.
Quine's comparison of physical objects with the gods of Homer in his (1951) seems to be an exception.
The comparison of typological objects in Moravia, like decorated bone disc, pendants, Venus, bâton percé, spatule, shows that their variability is well in the range expected for techno-complex.
Therefore, P fuzzy matrices Z ˜ 1, Z ˜ 2, …, Z ˜ P Open image in new window with triangular fuzzy numbers are obtained that show the pair-wise comparison of the objects based on the decision makers' perceptions.
