TABLE II.

Comparison of location and orientation registration errors of the Timmins method [9], SBG [10], DTW-area [11], [12], DTW-correlation (which uses the DTW framework of [14] with our correlation-based costs), and our 3D graph method. Note that our 3D graph method shows consistently lower registration errors. Note also that DTW-area [11], [12] was not designed for orientation registration.

Standard	Timmins method [9]		SBG [10]		DTW-area [11], [12]		DTW-correlation		3D graph
	ΔL(mm)	ΔO(°)	ΔL(mm)	ΔO(°)	ΔL(mm)	ΔO(°)	ΔL(mm)	ΔO(°)	ΔL(mm)	ΔO(°)
Exp. 1	1.35±1.55	19.40±23.81	1.35±1.55	11.70±15.42	1.23±1.62	-	0.79±1.19	18.57±35.26	0.75±1.22	9.27±13.52
Exp. 2	1.35±1.76	18.15±22.95	1.35±1.76	11.00±14.39	1.13±1.56	-	0.82±1.18	17.53±36.05	0.79±1.17	7.33±10.67
Exp. 3	1.19±1.49	18.32±22.95	1.19±1.49	10.90±14.11	1.14±1.57	-	0.73±1.08	17.32±34.72	0.72±1.16	7.70±11.51