Table 5.

Comparison between the proposed method and other approaches.

Method	Database	Accuracy
Israel et al. (2005) [18]	self-db: 29 subjects	100%
Wübbeler et al. (2007) [24]	self-db: 74 subjects	98.1%
Wang et al. (2008) [19]	MIT-BIH normal sinus	100%
Agrafioti and Hatzinakos (2009)	MIT-BIH normal sinus	96.2%
Lourenco et al. (2011) [45]	self-db: 16 subjects	94.3%
Poree et al. (2011) [25]	self-db: 11 subjects	91.4%
Zokaee and Faez (2012) [33]	MIT-BIH db	96.2%
Lee et al. (2012) [46]	self-db: 10 subjects	99.5%
Zhao et al. (2013) [34]	PTB db: 12 subjects	96.0%
Jekova and Bortolan (2015) [47]	Test PTB db: 14 subjects	77.6%
Jekova et al. (2018) [27]	self-db: 20 subjects	97.2%
Jekova et al. (2018) [27]	self-db: 50 subjects	94.5%
Our method (two cycles of signals from the wrist)	self-db: 55 subjects	89.9%
Our method (three cycles of signals from the wrist)	self-db: 55 subjects	93.3%
Our method (two cycles of signals from the wrist)	self-db: 20 subjects	95.6%
Our method (three cycles of signals from the wrist)	self-db: 20 subjects	97.5%
Our method (two cycles of signals from the fingers)	self-db: 20 subjects	99.3%
Our method (three cycles of signals from the fingers)	self-db: 20 subjects	100%