Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Nov 20.
Published in final edited form as: Neurocomputing (Amst). 2014 Nov 20;144:24–37. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2013.11.051

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Registration results for LeFiR, UniG, SURF, SIFT, and FFD using different numbers of landmarks measured by: (a) SSDi; (b) SSDd; (c) shows the corresponding computational times for these five methods. The comparison results suggested that the UniG, SURF, SIFT, and FFD methods required higher dense sampling of the grid and longer computational times to obtain the same level of registration performance as LeFiR.