Table 3.

Summary of previous OCT registration methods compared to the proposed method.

Reference	Method	Modality	$\lambda$ (nm)	FOV ($\mathrm{mm}\times \mathrm{mm}$)	Resolution AR ($\mu \mathrm{m}$) × LR ($\mu \mathrm{m}$)
Cheng et al.27	Affine and B-spline transformation	SS-OCT	1310	$9\times 9$	$11.1\times 11.1$
		Zeiss PLEX Elite 9000	1060	$6\times 6$	$6.3\times 20.0$
Athwal et al.28	CC, SIFT, NCC	SS-OCTA	1060	$2\times 2$	$6.3\times 7.7$
Kurokawa et al.29	POC, NCC	AO-OCT	790	$1\times 1$	$5.3\times 2.9$
Heisler et al.32	CC, SIFT, NCC	SS-OCTA	1060	$2\times 2$	$6.0\times 8.6$
Zang et al.54	Cost-function optimization	SS-OCTA	1045	$6\times 10$	$5.6\times 8.9$
Proposed method	POC, CC	DS-OCT	810	$6\times 6$	$3.2\times 9.7$
		SAO-OCT	1060	$0.5\times 0.5$	$7.0\times 3.3$
		Zeiss PLEX Elite 9000	1060	$6\times 6$	$6.3\times 20.0$

SS, swept-source; CC, cross correlation; SIFT, scale-invariant feature transform; NCC, normalized cross correlation; POC, phase-only correlation; AO, adaptive-optics; AR, axial resolution; and LR, lateral resolution.