Table 2.

Permutation tests for obtained absolute % differences in NGMV and NWMV on 1.5 T images. Reported values are mean and standard deviation (μ_o, σ_o) of the fraction of times when each method produces significant p-values (p ≤ 0.05). (a) Results when using FAST. (b) Results when using SPM8. Positive values indicate that in average, the method out-performs the other methods in pair-wise significant tests. Negative values indicate the contrary. Rank 1: (μ_o − σ_o, μ_o], rank 2: (μ_o − 2σ_o, μ_o − σ_o], rank 3: (μ_o − 3σ_o, μ_o − 2σ_o].

	NGMV		NWMV
	Method	μ ± σ	Method	μ ± σ
(a) FAST segmentation method (1.5 T)
Rank 1	SLF	0.83 ± 0.41	SLF	0.83 ± 0.41
Rank 2	FSL-L	0.33 ± 0.82	FSL-L	0.33 ± 0.82
	LEAP	0.33 ± 0.82	LEAP	0.33 ± 0.82
Rank 3	MAGON	−0.17 ± 0.98	MAGON	−0.17 ± 0.98
	MASKED	−0.23 ± 0.41	MASKED	−0.23 ± 0.41
	NONE	−0.50 ± 0.84	NONE	−0.50 ± 0.84
(b) SPM8 segmentation method (1.5 T)
Rank 1	SLF	0.67 ± 0.52	SLF	0.83 ± 0.41
	LEAP	0.67 ± 0.52
Rank 2	MAGON	0.00 ± 0.89	LEAP	0.33 ± 0.82
	FSL-L	0.00 ± 0.89	MAGON	0.17 ± 0.75
Rank 3	NONE	−0.67 ± 0.52	FSL-L	0.00 ± 0.89
	MASKED	−0.67 ± 0.52	MASKED	−0.50 ± 0.84
			NONE	−0.83 ± 0.41