Table 3.
Comparison of compression performance.
| Reference | Method Used | CR (%) |
PRD (%) |
PRDN (%) |
Hardware Implementation |
Real-Time Execution |
Noise Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cox et al.18 | Time Domain | 83 | 31.0 | — | No | No | No |
| Abenstein et al.19 | Time Domain | 80 | 11.0 | — | No | No | No |
| Alam et al.21 | Transform Domain | 90 | 5.1 | 6.5 | No | No | No |
| Ziran et al.20 | Transform Domain | 95 | 10.6 | — | No | No | No |
| Adamo et al.51 | Parameter Extraction | 42 | 1.1 | 17.3 | No | No | No |
| Elgendi et al.8 | Parameter Extraction | 78 | 0.5 | — | No | No | No |
| Elgendi et al.22 | Parameter Extraction | 83 | 1.9 | — | No | No | No |
| Wang et al.29 | Hybrid | 94 | 7.3 | — | No | No | No |
| Ma et al.30 | Hybrid | 94 | 1.7 | 25.7 | No | No | No |
| Lee et al.45 | Hybrid | 95 | 2.9 | 40.6 | No | No | No |
| Lai et al.52 | Transform Domain | 81 | 0.2 | 3.7 | Yes | Yes | No |
| Luo et al.53 | Transform Domain | 85 | 0.2 | 2.6 | Yes | Yes | No |
| Proposed | Transform Domain | 90 | 1.5 | 8.8 | Yes | Yes | Yes |