. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Med Image Anal. 2013 Dec 18;18(6):914–926. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2013.12.005

Table 5.

Hypothesis test results (p-values) with multiple testing correction results (FDR corrected p-values in parentheses) for registration results evaluated via landmark errors for SEM/confocal images. We use a one-sided paired t-test. Comparison of different image types (original image, standard IA, proposed IA) using the same registration models (rigid, affine, B-spline). The proposed model shows the best performance for all transformation models. (Bold indicates statistically significant improvement at significance level α = 0.05 after correcting for multiple comparisons with FDR (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).)

		Original Image/Standard IA	Original Image/Proposed IA	Standard IA/Proposed IA

Rigid	SSD	0.5017 (0.5236)	0.0040 (0.0102)	0.0482 (0.0668)
Rigid	MI	0.0747 (0.0961)	0.0014 (0.0052)	0.0888(0.1065)

Affine	SSD	0.5236 (0.5236)	0.0013 (0.0052)	0.0357 (0.0535)
Affine	MI	0.0298 (0.0488)	0.0048 (0.0108)	0.0258 (0.0465)

B-spline	SSD	0.0017 (0.0052)	0.0001 (0.0023)	0.0089 (0.0179)
B-spline	MI	0.1491 (0.1678)	0.0002 (0.0024)	0.0017 (0.0052)