## 4 Experiments and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Patient** & **Method** & **Domain** & **Embedding** & **Amplitude** & **SNR** \\ ID & **Method** & **Domain** & **Parameters** & **Similarity** & **SNR** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{5} & \multirow{4}{*}{Reference [22]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Time domain} & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 29.25 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 29.41 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 30.00 \\  & & & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 41.56 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 37.20 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.99 & 25.67 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 40.26 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 1 & 35.74 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 25.95 \\  & & & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 22.78 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 15.72 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 9.78 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=2000\), \(n=2\) & 0.99 & 25.16 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=3000\), \(n=3\) & 0.99 & 25.34 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=4000\), \(n=4\) & 0.99 & 25.76 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{6} & \multirow{4}{*}{Reference [22]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Time domain} & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 40.62 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 40.53 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 40.53 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 41.39 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 1 & 40.21 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.99 & 26.17 \\  & & & \(Q=500\) & 1 & 40.96 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 1 & 39.15 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.99 & 25.75 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.99 & 30.71 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 22.34 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 16.89 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=2000\), \(n=2\) & 1 & 26.83 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=3000\), \(n=3\) & 1 & 26.39 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=4000\), \(n=4\) & 1 & 26.56 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{7} & \multirow{4}{*}{Reference [22]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Time domain} & \(Q=500\) & 0.98 & 39.24 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.97 & 39.16 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.97 & 38.56 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 40.25 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 30.23 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.97 & 28.47 \\  & & & \(Q=500\) & 1 & 40.96 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.98 & 37.15 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 29.51 \\  & & & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 30.71 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 23.54 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 16.59 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=2000\), \(n=2\) & 1 & 29.83 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=3000\), \(n=3\) & 1 & 28.39 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=4000\), \(n=4\) & 0.99 & 28.26 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{8} & \multirow{4}{*}{Reference [22]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Time domain} & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 38.29 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.98 & 37.43 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 37.95 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 41.39 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.98 & 36.25 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.99 & 29.41 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 40.96 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=3000\), \(n=3\) & 1 & 28.39 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=4000\), \(n=4\) & 0.99 & 28.26 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{9} & \multirow{4}{*}{Reference [22]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Time domain} & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 38.29 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.98 & 37.43 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.98 & 37.95 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 41.39 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.98 & 36.25 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.99 & 29.41 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 1 & 40.96 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.98 & 36.41 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.97 & 26.35 \\  & & & \(Q=500\) & 0.99 & 31.57 \\  & & & \(Q=2000\) & 0.99 & 26.83 \\  & & & \(Q=5000\) & 0.97 & 17.38 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=2000\), \(n=2\) & 1 & 28.64 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=3000\), \(n=3\) & 1 & 27.39 \\  & & & \(\varepsilon=4000\), \(n=4\) & 1 & 28.35 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._After the embedding, common attacks including re-sampling, low-pass filtering, and noise interference are utilized to test the robustness of the embedded patients' confidential data. The test methods and average BER results are explained as follows.