Table 3.

Comparison with other method

Method:	Proposed	Peters [12]
Invalid measurement ratio [%]	1.6	5.4
$\overline{\mid \text{Δ}{\mathsf{\text{T}}}_{\mathsf{\text{i}}}\mid }\left[\mathsf{\text{ms}}\right]$ (Original signals)	1.91	1.91
$\overline{\mid \text{Δ}{\mathsf{\text{T}}}_{\mathsf{\text{i}}}\mid }\left[\mathsf{\text{ms}}\right]$ (Normalized signals)	1.73	1.89
Mean(δSTI) [%]	-6.9	-5.1
Correl. coeff. r	0.992	0.992

The parameters describing accuracy of FHR signals determined using the method presented in this paper and the one from Peters et al. Both methods were compared using the research material comprising 8945 intervals.