Table 6.

Summary is shown of previously reported spatial accuracies derived using the publically available reference data set utilized in this study for spatial accuracy assessment of the LFC method. Since measurements were made for each algorithm using the same reference images and landmark feature pairs, comparison can be made among the average spatial registration errors. Results for the algorithms listed are reported in [7,8,44].

Case Number	LFC	CCLG	Demons	4DLTM
1	0.85 (1.00)	1.02 (1.03)	1.10 (1.09)	0.97 (1.02)
2	0.74 (0.99)	1.29 (1.22)	1.00 (1.15)	0.86 (1.08)
3	0.93 (1.07)	N/A	1.32 (1.21)	1.01 (1.17)
4	1.33 (1.51)	N/A	2.42 (2.48)	1.40 (1.57)
5	1.14 (1.25)	2.50 (1.91)	1.82 (1.87)	1.67 (1.79)
6	1.04 (1.05)	N/A	N/A	1.58 (1.65)
7	1.03 (1.01)	N/A	N/A	1.46 (1.29)
8	1.11 (1.18)	N/A	N/A	1.77 (2.12)
9	1.04 (1.00)	N/A	N/A	1.19 (1.12)
10	1.05 (1.10)	N/A	N/A	1.59 (1.87)