Table 4.
Pearsons correlation coefficients before and after registration (larger is better)
| All studies | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |
Mean |
Variation |
Median |
Min |
Max |
| Unregistered |
0.82 |
0.20 |
0.89 |
-0.09 |
1.00 |
| QUASI-P |
0.90 |
0.16 |
0.95 |
0.00 |
1.00 |
| QUASI-P ∗ |
0.91 |
0.12 |
0.95 |
0.13 |
1.00 |
| ICA-SP |
0.92 |
0.13 |
0.97 |
0.17 |
1.00 |
|
Rest studies | |||||
| Unregistered |
0.81 |
0.18 |
0.88 |
0.15 |
0.99 |
| QUASI-P |
0.90 |
0.13 |
0.95 |
0.13 |
1.00 |
| ICA-SP |
0.93 |
0.11 |
0.97 |
0.33 |
1.00 |
|
Stress studies | |||||
| Unregistered |
0.82 |
0.22 |
0.91 |
-0.09 |
1.00 |
| QUASI-P |
0.90 |
0.19 |
0.96 |
0.00 |
1.00 |
| QUASI-P ∗ |
0.92 |
0.11 |
0.96 |
0.15 |
1.00 |
| ICA-SP | 0.92 | 0.15 | 0.97 | 0.17 | 1.00 |
Both algorithms result in a significant improvement of the measures with ICA-SP providing the better motion compensation than QUASI-P according to the obtained average value of R2.