Enhancing Impedance Imaging Through Multimodal Tomography

Several noninvasive modalities including electrical impedance tomography (EIT), magnetic induction tomography (MIT), and induced-current EIT (ICEIT) have been developed for imaging the electrical conductivity distribution within a human body. Although these modalities differ in how the excitation and detection circuitry (electrodes or coils) are implemented, they share a number of common principles not only within the image reconstruction approaches but also with respect to the basic principle of generating a current density distribution inside a body and recording the resultant electric fields. In this paper, we are interested in comparing differences between these modalities and in theoretically understanding the compromises involved, despite the increased hardware cost and complexity that such a multimodal system brings along. To systematically assess the merits of combining data, we performed 3-D simulations for each modality and for the multimodal system by combining all available data. The normalized sensitivity matrices were computed for each modality based on the finite element method, and singular value decomposition was performed on the resultant matrices. We used both global and regional quality measures to evaluate and compare different modalities. This study has shown that the condition number of the sensitivity matrix obtained from the multimodal tomography with 16-electrode and 16-coil is much lower than the condition number produced in the conventional 16-channel EIT and MIT systems, and thus, produced promising results in terms of image stability. An improvement of about 20% in image resolution can be achieved considering feasible signal-to-noise ratio levels.

[1]  Andy Adler,et al.  Experimental evaluation of two iterative reconstruction methods for induced current electrical impedance tomography , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[2]  Z. Cho,et al.  SVD pseudoinversion image reconstruction , 1981 .

[3]  H. Griffiths,et al.  A numerical model for magnetic induction tomographic measurements in biological tissues. , 2001, Physiological measurement.

[4]  Patricia Brunner,et al.  Solution of the inverse problem of magnetic induction tomography (MIT) with multiple objects: analysis of detectability and statistical properties with respect to the reconstructed conducting region , 2006, Physiological measurement.

[5]  H Scharfetter,et al.  Fast calculation of the sensitivity matrix in magnetic induction tomography by tetrahedral edge finite elements and the reciprocity theorem. , 2004, Physiological measurement.

[6]  N.G. Gencer,et al.  Electrical impedance tomography: induced-current imaging achieved with a multiple coil system , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  M. Soleimani,et al.  Imaging of conductivity changes and electrode movement in EIT , 2006, Physiological measurement.

[8]  Moshe Rosenfeld,et al.  Induced current electrical impedance tomography system: experimental results and numerical simulations. , 2004, Physiological measurement.

[9]  Doga Gursoy,et al.  Imaging artifacts in magnetic induction tomography caused by the structural incorrectness of the sensor model , 2011 .

[10]  I. L. Freeston,et al.  Induced current impedance imaging , 1993 .

[11]  H Griffiths,et al.  Magnetic Induction Tomography: A Measuring System for Biological Tissues , 1999, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Per Christian Hansen,et al.  Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems , 1996 .

[13]  D. Djajaputra Electrical Impedance Tomography: Methods, History and Applications , 2005 .

[14]  A.J. Peyton,et al.  Computation of 3-D Sensitivity Coefficients in Magnetic Induction Tomography Using Boundary Integral Equations and Radial Basis Functions , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[15]  Andy Adler,et al.  Adjacent stimulation and measurement patterns considered harmful , 2011, Physiological measurement.

[16]  John R. Mortarelli A Generalization of the Geselowitz Relationship Useful in Impedance Plethysmographic Field Calculations , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Hermann Scharfetter,et al.  The effect of receiver coil orientations on the imaging performance of magnetic induction tomography , 2009 .

[18]  William R B Lionheart,et al.  GREIT: a unified approach to 2D linear EIT reconstruction of lung images , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[19]  D Gürsoy,et al.  Reconstruction artefacts in magnetic induction tomography due to patient's movement during data acquisition , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[20]  B. Brown,et al.  Applied potential tomography. , 1989, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

[21]  H. Griffiths Magnetic induction tomography , 2001 .

[22]  David S. Holder,et al.  Electrical Impedance Tomography : Methods, History and Applications , 2004 .

[23]  B M Eyüboglu,et al.  Distinguishability analysis of an induced current EIT system using discrete coils. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Manuchehr Soleimani,et al.  Computational aspects of low frequency electrical and electromagnetic tomography: A review study , 2008 .

[25]  Hermann Scharfetter,et al.  Optimum Receiver Array Design for Magnetic Induction Tomography , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[26]  Olaf Steinbach,et al.  Boundary integral formulations for the forward problem in magnetic induction tomography , 2011 .

[27]  Henning Luepschen,et al.  Impedance tomography as a new monitoring technique , 2010, Current opinion in critical care.

[28]  M. Soleimani,et al.  A three-dimensional inverse finite-element method applied to experimental eddy-current imaging data , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[29]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Inverse problem theory - and methods for model parameter estimation , 2004 .

[30]  Mustafa Kuzuoglu,et al.  Electrical impedance tomography using induced currents , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[31]  K. Boone,et al.  Effect of skin impedance on image quality and variability in electrical impedance tomography: a model study , 1996, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.