Comparison of potential- and activation-based formulations for the inverse problem of electrocardiology
Comparison of potential- and activation-based formulations for the inverse problem of electrocardiology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1109/tbme.2002.807326
复制
发表时间：
2003-01-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Pullan, AJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cheng, LK;Bodley, JM;Pullan, AJ
目前存在两种主要的心电学逆问题源公式。他们涉及重建心外膜电位或心肌激活时间从非侵入性记录躯干表面电位。这些配方中的每一种都有其优点，然而，它们还没有被系统地相互比较。我们提出了一个模拟研究的结果，比较了一些心外膜电位（Tikhonov，截断奇异值分解（TSVD），Greensite-Tikhonov和Greensite-TSVD），和心肌激活时间制定的逆问题的心电图。还使用了许多不同的方法来确定适当的正则化水平（最佳，L曲线，零交叉，复合残差和平滑算子），以应用于每个formulation.The模拟研究进行了基于解剖学的边界元猪模型与各种心脏来源。将不同水平的几何误差引入系统，并使用每个逆算法计算解决方案。结果表明，在纯高斯噪声下，基于电位的方法在低噪声水平下表现最好，而基于激活的方法受较高噪声水平的影响较小。在存在相关几何误差的情况下，基于活化的方法优于势方法，当使用L曲线或过零方法来确定正则化参数时，Greensite-Tikhonov方法是最受欢迎的基于势的方法。
Two predominant source formulations for the inverse problem of electrocardiology currently exist. They involve the reconstruction of epicardial potentials or myocardial activation times from noninvasively recorded torso surface potentials. Each of these formulations have their advantages, however, they have not been systematically compared against each other. We present results from a simulation study which compared a number of epicardial potential (Tikhonov, Truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD), Greensite-Tikhonov and Greensite-TSVD), and a myocardial activation time formulation for the inverse problem of electrocardiology. A number of different methods were also used to determine the appropriate level of regularization (optimal, L-curve, zero-crossing, and composite residual and smoothing operator) to apply to each formulation.The simulation study was conducted using an anatomically based boundary element porcine model with a variety of cardiac sources. Varying levels of geometric error were introduced to the system and solutions were computed using each of the inverse algorithms. Results show that under pure Gaussian noise potential-based methods performed best at low noise levels while the activation-based method was less effected by higher noise levels. In the presence of correlated geometric error, the activation-based method out performed the potential methods, with the Greensite-Tikhonov method being the most favored potential-based method when using the L-curve or zero-crossing method to determine the regularization parameter.