. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Med Image Anal. 2012 Feb 23;16(5):1015–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2012.02.004

Table 3.

Results for the validation measures given in the text. ICA-T+SP provides the best motion compensation results for all validation measures. The significance of the difference of ICA-T+SP when compared to the other motion compensation methods is given in Table 4.

R² ↑

NMSE ↓

σ ↓

BRMSE↓

DI ↑

\frac{time}{s}

manual

–

.204±.084

–

unregistered

.838±.185

.529±.482

.346±.178

1.66±.424

.703±.162

–

ICA-SP

.959±.076

.287±.333

.254±.150

1.16±.366

.818±.087

47 ± 19

ICA-T

.928±.135

.327±.384

.274±.146

1.25±.358

.794±.114

9 ± 3

ICA-T+SP

.963±.058

.259±.261

.249±.131

1.10±.234

.826±.085

17 ± 9

SERIAL

.942±.116

.336±.373

.266±.146

1.43±.359

.768±.133

846 ±157

QUASI-P

.942±.089

.305±.280

.272±.147

1.29±.263

.790±.121

400 ± 76

ICA-T+PGT

.955±.085

.282±.302

.259±.138

1.15±.258

.815±.092

18 ± 9