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.
The inverse problem of electrocardiology aims to reconstruct the electrical activity occurring within the heart using information obtained noninvasively on the body surface. Potentials obtained on the torso surface can be used as input for the inverse problem and an electrical image of the heart obtained. There are a number of different inverse algorithms currently used to produce electrical images of the heart. The relative performances of these inverse algorithms at this stage is largely unknown. Although there have been many simulation studies investigating the accuracy of each of these algorithms, to date, there has been no comprehensive study which compares a wide variety of inverse methods. By performing a detailed simulation study, we compare the performances of epicardial potential [Tikhonov, Truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD), and Greensite] and myocardial activation-based (critical point) inverse simulations along with different methods of choosing the appropriate level of regularization (optimal, L-curve, composite residual and smoothing operator, zero-crossing) to apply to each of these inverse methods. We also examine the effects of a variety of signal error, material property error, geometric error and a combination of these errors on each of the electrocardiographic inverse algorithms. Results from the simulation study show that the activation-based method is able to produce solutions which are more accurate and stable than potential-based methods especially in the presence of correlated errors such as geometric uncertainty. In general, the Greensite-Tikhonov method produced the most realistic potential-based solutions while the zero-crossing and L-curve were the preferred method for determining the regularization parameter. The presence of signal or material property error has little effect on the inverse solutions when compared with the large errors which resulted from the presence of any geometric error. In the presence of combined Gaussian and correlated errors representing conditions which may be encountered in an experimental or clinical environment, there was less variability between potential-based solutions produced by each of the inverse algorithms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.