Table 5 Inter-system reliability results after scanning 14 human subjects once with each system.

From: Reliability and validity of handheld structured light scanners and a static stereophotogrammetry system in facial three-dimensional surface imaging

 

3dMD versus Artec Eva (RMS in mm ± SD)

3dMD versus Artec Space Spider (RMS in mm ± SD)

Artec Space Spider versus Artec Eva (RMS in mm ± SD)

1

0.31 ± 0.31

0.33 ± 0.52

0.26 ± 0.24

2

0.69 ± 0.57

0.47 ± 0.53

0.21 ± 0.19

3

0.53 ± 0.64

0.41 ± 0.75

0.31 ± 0.36

4

0.27 ± 0.35

0.48 ± 0.95

0.24 ± 0.23

5

0.34 ± 0.25

0.38 ± 0.26

0.10 ± 0.14

6

0.35 ± 0.39

0.37 ± 0.55

0.21 ± 0.27

7

0.29 ± 0.75

0.34 ± 0.83

0.29 ± 0.25

8

0.32 ± 0.34

0.50 ± 0.88

0.24 ± 0.22

9

0.45 ± 0.54

0.75 ± 0.17

0.31 ± 0.27

10

0.42 ± 0.39

0.44 ± 0.54

0.26 ± 0.23

11

0.32 ± 0.33

0.40 ± 0.74

0.26 ± 0.24

12

0.45 ± 0.41

0.44 ± 0.74

0.30 ± 0.31

13

0.35 ± 0.35

0.34 ± 0.62

0.34 ± 0.32

14

0.35 ± 0.35

0.59 ± 1.00

0.34 ± 0.28

Mean difference ± SD

0.39 ± 0.11

0.45 ± 0.11

0.26 ± 0.06

Registration error

0.14

0.13

0.12

  1. RMS: Root mean square. RMS represents the mean difference between the scans from the different systems. The Friedman test and post-hoc Conover testing showed significant differences between Spider versus Eva and 3dMD versus Eva (p < 0.01), Spider versus Eva and 3dMD versus Spider (p < 0.01), but no difference between 3dMD versus Eva and 3dMD versus Spider (p = 0.80).
Back to article page