Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BMMR Paper Jeb 2011
BMMR Paper Jeb 2011
33 47, 2011
Received: 30 Mar 2011, published: 15 Jun 2011
doi:10.5617/jeb.170
1. Department of Instrumentation and Applied Physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-560012, INDIA
2. Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-560012, INDIA
3. E-mail any correspondence to: solarjnr@isu.iisc.ernet.in
33
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
system matrix. The BMMR method is integrated in a Model Conductivity reconstruction in EIT is a nonlinear,
Based Iterative Image Reconstruction (MoBIIR) algorithm highly ill-posed [39-43] inverse problem in which a small
[38] developed and the impedance image reconstruction is amount of noise in the boundary data can lead to enormous
studied using simulated data. Conductivity images are errors in the estimates. Hence, EIT needs a regularization
reconstructed for different phantom configurations using technique [39-43] with a suitable regularization parameter
the BMMR technique and the results are compared with the () to constrain its solution space as well as to convert the
STR and LMR methods. ill-posed problem into a well-posed one. A regularized
solution of the inverse problem not only decreases the ill-
posed characteristics of the inverse matrix but also, it
improves the reconstructed image quality.
Considering Vm as the measured voltage matrix and f
as a function mapping an E-dimensional (E is the number
of elements in the finite element mesh [44]) impedance
distribution into a set of M (number of the measured data
available) measured voltage data, an object function can be
defined as the L-2 norm of the difference between Vm and f
[39-43]:
1 2 1 2
sr = Vm f + r G (2)
2 2
Fig.1: Current injection and voltage measurement in EIT for a
closed domain () surrounded by surface electrodes at the where sr is the constrained least-square error of the
domain boundary ( ) (red and blue electrode represent the reconstruction, G is the regularization matrix and r is a
current and voltage electrodes respectively). positive scalar called as the regularization coefficient or
regularization parameter.
Materials and methods By the Gauss Newton (GN) method the conductivity
update vector [] is given by:
Regularized Reconstruction in EIT
d
For a low frequency (<100 kHz) sinusoidal constant (s r ) (f )T (Vm f ) r (G )T (G ) (3)
current injection at the boundary () of a closed domain = d2 =
() containing a homogeneous and isotropic medium with d
(s ) (f )T (f ) (f )T (Vm f ) + r G T G
r
low magnetic permeability (biological tissue) and electrical d 2
conductivity (), the electrical potential () developed at a
point P (P = P (x, y) in Cartesian coordinate system) within Neglecting higher terms and replacing f by J and GTG by I
can be represented as [4, 18, 39-40]: (Identity matrix), the update vector reduces to
MoBIIR Algorithm where N is the number of nodes in the finite element mesh,
xi (i = 1, 2, 3, , N) is the conductivity at the
In the MoBIIR algorithm, a forward model based corresponding nodes, aij is the coefficient of the xi
iterative image reconstruction approach based on linear (conductivity) at each node and bm (m = 1, 2, 3, , M) is
perturbation equation is followed. The linear perturbation the corresponding nodal potentials and M is the number of
equations containing the first derivative of the forward boundary measurements available. From the Gauss-Newton
operator are derived from the EIT governing equation method (without incorporating the regularization technique)
(Eq.-1). It is then solved to calculate the boundary potential the normal equation [47] can be written as:
for known current conduction and conductivity using the
finite element method (FEM) [45]. The solution of the [A ]NN [x ]N1 = [B]N1 (9)
forward problem is also used to compute the Jacobian (J)
by adjoint method [46] using the Eq.-7: where,
J = U s .U d d (7)
[A ]NN [ ]
= JT N M [J ]MN (10)
where Us is the forward solution for a particular source
location and Ud is the forward solution for the adjoint and,
source location (source at the detector location and detector
at the source location). The simultaneous equation is solved [B]N1 [ ]
= JT N M [b]M1 (11)
using conjugate gradient search to obtain the update vector
for electrical conductivities []. Hence, for EIT, Eq.-8 reduces to:
The perturbation equation is updated by recomputing
the first derivative after each update of the electrical [J ]
T
N M [J ]MN []N1 = JT [ ] N M [V]M1 (12)
conductivities.
To make the ill-posed problem well-posed, a
The MoBIIR algorithm starts with the forward solution of regularization term I is added to the matrix A (or JTJ),
the EIT governing equation (Eq.-1) to calculate the where I is an identity matrix and is called the
boundary potential matrix [Vc] for a known current regularization parameter. In this context a block matrix
injection matrix [C] and a known (initial guess) based multiple regularization method is proposed which
conductivity matrix [0]. In the approximation algorithm a calculates the multiple regularization parameters from the
least square solution of the minimized object function (sr) is system response matrix [JTJ] and form a new response
obtained which gives an estimation of a potential Vc from matrix called BMMR matrix ([ZBMMR]NN) within each of
which V (V= Vm Vc) is estimated for the next the inner iterations of Conjugate Gradient Search (CGS).
iterations. The voltage difference matrix [V = Vm Vc] is The matrix [ZBMMR]NN is formed with the diagonal
estimated and then it is used to calculate the conductivity matrices [Wi]nn (n=N) containing all the diagonal
update matrix [] using the Eq.-4. [] is used to improve elements equal to the largest element (i) of the adjoint
the [o] matrix a to new conductivity matrix [1 = o + ] matrices (of their corresponding positions) of [JTJ].
(as shown in Eq.-6). In the second iteration, [1] is used to The response matrix JTJ is rearranged by separating all
calculate a new boundary voltage matrix and a new update the adjoint matrices ([Lpq]nn: p, q = 1, 2, 3, , n) and a
vector [1]. The [1] matrix is then used to update the matrix A is formed as (Fig.-2a):
[1] for obtaining a new conductivity matrix [2]. In this
way at the (kth) iteration, the update vector becomes [k] A = [[L pq ]nn ]NN (13)
and the conductivity matrix becomes [k+1 = k + k].
The measurement data for each projection in EIT can be If the matrix A is further reformed as:
written in the form of following system of equations:
L pq = [a ij ] nn when, p = q
1
a x
11 1 + 1
a x2
12 + + a 1
1(N 1) x N 1 + 1
a xN
1N = b 1
L pq = Null Matrix, when, p q
2 2 2 2
a x
21 1 + a x2
22 + + a 2(N 1) x N 1 + a xN
2N = b2
=
Then, the matrix A is reduces to Y given by (Fig.-2b):
=
=
m 1 m 1 m 1 m 1
a (N 1)1x 1 + a (N 1)2 x 2 + + a (N 1)(N 1) x N 1 + a (N 1)N x N = b m -1
a1N1x1 + a mN2 x 2 + + a mN(N 1) x N 1 + a mNN x N = bm
---- (8)
35
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
[L11 ]n n []n n []n n []n n []n n The BMMR matrix incorporates the information produced
[] [L 22 ]n n []n n []n n []n n
nn by the local physiological changes in the system which is
[]n n []n n [L33 ]n n []n n []n n
generally overshadowed in the STR or LMR method.
[Y] =
[Lii ]n n
[]
nn []n n []n n [L ]
(n -1)(n -1) n n []n n
[]n n []n n []n n []n n [L nn ]n n N N
---- (14)
where, []nn is a null matrix given by:
i 0 0 0 0
0
i 0 0 0
0 0 i 0 0
(17)
[Wi ]nn =
0 0 0 i 0
0 0 0 0 i n n
b
Replacing all the diagonal adjoint block matrices ([Lii]:
i = 1, 2, 3, , n) by newly formed diagonal matrices [Wi]
in matrix [Y], a matrix [ZBMMR] called the BMMR matrix is
formed as:
[W1 ]nn . . . .
. [W2 ]nn . . .
. . [W3 ]nn . .
[Z BMMR ] =
[Wi ]nn
.
. . [Wn -1 ]nn .
. . . . [Wn ]nn NN
---- (18)
36
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
In the MoBIIR algorithm with STR regularization, a error norm (E) [48] are also calculated in the STR, LMR
constant regularization parameter (r= *) is used where and BMMR methods for all the iterations with different
the is a constant calculated as the largest element of the values of . EV and E are calculated in each iteration as:
response matrix JTJ (max(max(JTJ))). Hence, in the STR 1 2
method, the r remains unchanged for all the iterations. On EV = Vm Vc (21)
2
the other hand, in the MoBIIR with LMR method, is
taken as the largest element of the response matrix JTJ to
reconstructed true
form the r (r= *) in the first iteration. But for all the E = (22)
other iterations, r is gradually decreased by a factor of true
10 . Hence, in both the STR and LMR methods, the
Results
regularization parameter (r) remains a small constant
number suitably calculated (as stated above) from the It is observed that the projection errors (EV) in STR and
response matrix (JTJ) in each of the iterations of the LMR becomes minimum at = 0.0001 (Fig.-3a) and =
reconstruction process. Therefore, the local or regional 0.0001 (Fig.-3b), respectively. However, in the BMMR
physiological information of the nodal points in the domain method the EV becomes minimum at = 0.01 (Fig.-3c).
under imaging are not taken into account in the STR and
LMR methods. Hence, in both the STR and LMR methods,
a constant regularization parameter is being used at each
iteration and as a result the local or regional physiological
attributes are not taken into account in them. Furthermore,
due to the addition of constant regularization parameter to
the matrix A, it perturbs the original system of equations
and these perturbations are not based on the spectral
information. Hence this perturbation may introduce a
significant error in the solution as well as some unwanted
solution could be obtained.
For the entire study, a symmetric finite element mesh a
containing 512 triangular elements and 289 nodes is used in
the MoBIIR both for the forward and inverse solution of the
image reconstruction process.
Image Reconstruction with Simulated Boundary Data
Boundary potential data are generated by simulating a
constant current (1 mA) injected to a circular phantom
(Diameter (Dp) = 150 mm) with circular inhomogeneity
with a conductivity of 0.02 S/m surrounded by a homo-
geneous background medium (conductivity = 0.58 S/m).
Boundary data are generated with a number of phantom
geometries simulated with circular inhomogeneities of
different diameters (D) and situated at different distances
(center to center distance, L) from the phantom center. Con-
b
ductivity images are reconstructed from all the boundary
data in the MoBIIR with BMMR regularization technique
and the results are compared with the STR and LMR
methods. All the images are analyzed with their contrast
parameters defined by their elemental conductivity profiles.
Image Analysis with Contrast Parameters and Normalized
Error Terms
Contrast to noise ratio (CNR) [48], percentage of
contrast recovery (PCR) [48], coefficient of contrast (COC)
[48] and mean inhomogeneity conductivity (ICMean) are
calculated for the images reconstructed by all the c
regularization techniques and regularization parameters to
compare the reconstruction accuracy. To further analyze the
Fig.3: Projection errors (EV) calculated in the conductivity
proposed method, normalized projection error (error due to reconstruction at different iterations with different values of :
the voltage mismatch), EV [48] and the normalized solution (a) with STR, (b) with LMR, (c) with BMMR.
37
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
Conductivity reconstructions show that the EV (Fig.-4a) and shows that the BMMR technique gives better image
the E (Fig.-4b) in STR and LMR are larger than in the reconstruction with less background noise. Reconstructed
BMMR technique. images obtained in STR, LMR and BMMR with = 0.01
To compare the image reconstruction and image quality show that, for the phantom with a circular inhomogeneity
in the STR, LMR and BMMR methods, the conductivity (D = 30 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3 (Fig.-5a),
reconstruction is conducted first with = 0.01 and then the CNRs of the reconstructed images in STR (Fig.-5b) and
with = 0.0001. For further study, the conductivity LMR (Fig.-5c) methods are 1.91 and 2.07, respectively
reconstruction is also conducted with an intermediate value (Table-1). On the other hand, for the BMMR method (Fig.-
of (with = 0.00011 and = 0.0011). Imaging with = 5d), the CNR of the reconstructed image is 2.67 (Table-1).
0.0001 in all the methods (STR, LMR and BMMR) gives a Results show that, for the same phantom, the PCRs of the
more clear aspect of the proposed method (BMMR) as STR reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods are
and LMR methods show the best result at = 0.0001. The 37.35 % and 34.72 %, respectively, whereas it is 49.06 %
conductivity images are also reconstructed for the phantoms for the BMMR method (Table-1). For the same
with inhomogeneities of different diameters and different reconstruction, it is also observed that the COCs of the
geometric positions using the STR, LMR and BMMR reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods are
methods with different values of . = 0.0001. Conductivity 1.52 and 1.49, respectively, whereas it is 2.14 in BMMR
imaging is also studied with single, double and triple technique (Table-1). Results also show that ICMean of the
inhomogeneity phantoms with the STR, LMR and BMMR reconstructed images in the STR and LMR methods are
methods and the results are compared. 0.41 S/m and 0.40 S/m, respectively, whereas in the
BMMR method it is 0.24 S/m (Table-1).
a b
c d
Fig.5: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with
inhomogeneity (D = 30 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3
( = 0.01): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR.
38
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
phantom, the PCRs of the reconstructed images with the the STR and LMR methods are 0.25 S/m and 0.27 S/m,
STR and LMR methods are 46.30 % and 28.25 % respectively, whereas in the BMMR method it is 0.12 S/m
respectively whereas it is 68.76 % for BMMR method (Table-3). Hence, the conductivity reconstruction with
(Table-2). different values of shows that the BMMR method
For the same reconstruction, it is also observed that the improves the image quality compared to STR and LMR.
COCs of the reconstructed images with the STR and LMR Reconstruction with = 0.0001 gives a more clear aspects
methods are 2.05 and 1.46, respectively, whereas it is 4.60 of the proposed method (BMMR) as the STR and LMR
in BMMR technique (Table-2). It is observed that ICMean of methods show the best result at = 0.0001.
the reconstructed images in the STR and LMR methods are
0.25 S/m and 0.34 S/m, respectively, whereas in the
BMMR method it is 0.11 S/m (Table-2).
a b
a b
c d
Fig.7: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with
inhomogeneity (D = 30 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3
c d ( = 0.00011): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR.
Fig.6: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with
inhomogeneity (D = 30 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3 Table-3: CNR, PCR and COC of the conductivity images of Fig.-7
( = 0.0001): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR.
= 0.00011 CNR PCR COC ICMean
Table-2: CNR, PCR and COC of the conductivity images of Fig.-6 STR 1.94 45.94 2.04 0.25
LMR 1.30 38.46 1.81 0.27
= 0.0001 CNR PCR COC ICMean BMMR 2.80 68.02 4.20 0.12
STR 1.98 46.30 2.05 0.25
LMR 1.12 28.25 1.46 0.34 The conductivity imaging (with = 0.0001) of the
BMMR 2.67 68.76 4.60 0.11 phantoms with circular inhomogeneity of different
diameters shows that the BMMR technique gives better
Conductivity imaging with = 0.00011 shows that, for the image reconstruction with less background noise. Imaging
phantom with a circular inhomogeneity (D = 30 mm, L = (with = 0.0001) of the phantom with a circular
37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3 (Fig.-7a), the CNRs of the inhomogeneity (D = 20 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode.
reconstructed images with the STR (Fig.-7b) and LMR No.-3 (Fig.-8a) shows that the CNRs of the reconstructed
(Fig.-7c) methods are 1.94 and 1.30, respectively, (Table-3) images with the STR (Fig.-8b) and LMR (Fig.-8c) methods
whereas in the BMMR method (Fig.-7d), it is 2.80 are 0.56 and 1.17, respectively (Table-4).
(Table-3).
On the other hand, for the BMMR method (Fig.-8d), the
Results show that, for the same phantom, the PCRs of the CNR of the reconstructed image is 2.51 (Table-4). Results
reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods are show that, for the same phantom, the PCRs of the
45.94 % and 38.46 %, respectively, whereas it is 68.02 for reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods are
the BMMR method (Table-3). 12.73 % and 20.93 %, respectively, whereas it is 50.53 for
the BMMR method (Table-4). In the same reconstruction, it
It is also observed that the COCs of the reconstructed is also observed that the COCs of the reconstructed images
images with the STR and LMR methods are 2.04 and 1.81, with the STR and LMR methods are 1.18 and 1.32, respec-
respectively, whereas it is 4.20 in BMMR technique (Table- tively, whereas it is 2.46 in BMMR technique (Table-4).
3). Results show that ICMean of the reconstructed images in
39
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
Imaging (with = 0.0001) of the phantom with a circular Results show that, for the same phantom, the PCRs of
inhomogeneity (D = 30 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode the reconstructed images with the STR and LMR
No.-3 (Fig.-9a) shows that the CNRs of the reconstructed methods are 45.94 % and 38.46 %, respectively,
images with the STR (Fig.-9b) and LMR (Fig.-9c) methods whereas it is 68.02 % for the BMMR method (Table-5).
are 1.94 and 1.30, respectively, (Table-5) whereas in the It is also observed that the COCs of the reconstructed
BMMR method (Fig.-9d), it is 2.80 (Table-5). images with the STR and LMR methods are 2.04 and
1.81, respectively, whereas it is 4.20 in BMMR
technique (Table-5).
Table-5: CNR, PCR and COC of the conductivity images of Fig.-9
a b
a b
c d
Fig.10: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with
inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3
( = 0.0001): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
c d with LMR, (d) image with BMMR.
Fig.9: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with Table-6: CNR, PCR and COC of the conductivity images of Fig.-10
inhomogeneity (D = 30 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3
( = 0.0001): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image 40 mm Dia. CNR PCR COC ICMean
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR. STR 1.91 53.07 2.29 0.23
LMR 2.14 65.05 3.33 0.16
BMMR 2.98 74.58 5.06 0.10
40
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
Conductivity imaging (with = 0.0001) of the phantoms methods are 2.15 and 2.06, respectively, whereas it is 6.01
with circular inhomogeneity at different positions also in BMMR technique (Table-8).
shows that the BMMR technique gives better image Reconstruction study (with = 0.0001) show that, for
reconstruction with less background noise. Results show the phantom with a circular inhomogeneity (D = 35 mm, L
that, for the phantom with a circular inhomogeneity (D = 35 = 52.5 mm) near electrode No.-3 (Fig.-13a), the CNRs of
mm, L = 22.5 mm) near electrode. No.-3 (Fig.-11a), the the reconstructed images with the STR (Fig.-13b) and LMR
CNRs of the reconstructed images with the STR (Fig.-11b) (Fig.-13c) methods are 3.44 and 3.57, respectively (Table-
and LMR (Fig.-11c) methods are 2.22 and 1.86, 9). On the other hand, for the BMMR method (Fig.-13d),
respectively (Table-7). On the other hand, for the BMMR the CNR of the reconstructed image is 3.59 (Table-9).
method (Fig.-11d), the CNR of the reconstructed image is
2.61 (Table-7). It is observed that, for the same phantom,
the PCRs of the reconstructed images with the STR and
LMR methods are 48.25 % and 44.09 %, respectively,
whereas it is 55.67 for the BMMR method (Table-7). In the
same reconstruction, it is also observed that the COCs of
the reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods
are 1.72 and 1.60, respectively, whereas it is 2.04 in
BMMR technique (Table-7). a b
a b c d
Fig.12: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with
inhomogeneity (D = 35 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-3
( = 0.0001): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR.
41
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
Results show that, for the same phantom, the PCRs of the It is observed that there is more background noise in STR
reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods are and LMR. On the other hand the background noise is
63.75 % and 62.77 %, respectively, whereas it is 63.77 % reduced in conductivity images obtained in BMMR
for the BMMR method (Table-9). For the same technique. Results also show that the inhomogeneities are
reconstruction, it is also observed that the COCs of the not separately reconstructed with their own shape in the
reconstructed images with the STR and LMR methods are STR and LMR method whereas in BMMR technique both
3.70 and 3.54, respectively, whereas it is 3.50 in BMMR the inhomogeneities are reconstructed with better
technique (Table-9). resolution.
Table-9: CNR, PCR and COC of the conductivity images of Fig.-13 Conductivity imaging (with = 0.01) of the phantoms
with a double inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 52.5 mm)
52.5 mm Dist. CNR PCR COC ICMean
near electrode No.-3 and 15 (Fig.-15a) shows that the
STR 3.44 63.75 3.70 0.13
quality of the reconstructed images with the STR (Fig.-15b)
LMR 3.57 62.77 3.54 0.14
and LMR (Fig.-15c) methods are poor compared to the
BMMR 3.59 63.77 3.50 0.14
image obtained with the BMMR method (Fig.-15d).
Multiple Inhomogeneity Imaging It is also observed that the background noise is reduced
in conductivity images in BMMR technique. On the other
Conductivity reconstruction studies show that, for multiple hand there is more background noise in STR and LMR.
inhomogeneity phantoms, the MoBIIR algorithm re- Results also show that the inhomogeneities are not
constructs better conductivity images with BMMR separately reconstructed with their proper shape in the STR
technique. As it is observed that, for the STR and LMR and LMR methods whereas in BMMR technique both the
methods, EV is minimum at = 0.0001 and for the BMMR inhomogeneities are reconstructed with better resolution.
method EV becomes minimum at = 0.01, the multiple
object imaging is also conducted for these two values of .
For further study, the conductivity reconstruction is also
conducted with a intermediate value of (with = 0.00011
and = 0.0011).
Conductivity imaging (with = 0.0001) of the
phantoms with double inhomogeneity shows that the
BMMR technique gives better image reconstruction with
less background noise.
Result shows that, for the phantom with a double
inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode
No.-3 and 15 (Fig.-14a), the quality of the reconstructed
images with the STR (Fig.-14b) and LMR (Fig.-14c)
methods are poor compared to the BMMR method (Fig.-
14d).
42
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
c d
Fig.16: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with double
inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 50.0 mm) near electrode No.-3
and 7 ( = 0.0011): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c)
image with LMR, (d) image with BMMR.
43
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
observed that the background noise is reduced in methods. But the image obtained in BMMR technique
conductivity images in BMMR technique. On the other (Fig.-21d) is still found better compared to the STR and
hand, there is more background noise in STR and LMR. LMR methods. Results also show that the inhomogeneities
Results also show that the inhomogeneities are not are not separately reconstructed with their proper shape in
separately reconstructed with their own shape in the STR the STR and LMR methods whereas in BMMR technique
and LMR method whereas in BMMR technique both the both the inhomogeneities are reconstructed with better
objects are reconstructed with better resolution. resolution.
a b a b
c d c d
Fig.19: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with tripple Fig.21: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with tripple
inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 50.0 mm) near electrode No.-1, inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-1,
between electrode No.-6-7 and between electrode No.-11-12 between electrode No.-6-7 and between electrode No.-11-12
( = 0.0011): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image ( = 0.00011): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR. with LMR, (d) image with BMMR
a b
a b
c d
Fig.20: Conductivity reconstruction of the phantom with tripple
inhomogeneity (D = 40 mm, L = 37.5 mm) near electrode No.-1,
between electrode No.-6-7 and between electrode No.-11-12
( = 0.0011): (a) original object, (b) image with STR, (c) image
with LMR, (d) image with BMMR
44
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
Discussion imaging is also studied using the STR, LMR and BMMR
method with some intermediate values of (with =
Reconstructed image quality greatly depends on the 0.0011 and = 0.00011). It is observed that the impedance
Jacobian matrix (J), response matrix (JTJ) and images are improved in BMMR, not only with all the
regularization parameter () of reconstruction algorithm in phantom configurations, but also for all the values of used
Electrical Impedance Tomography. In the MoBIIR in the present study. Results also show that the CNR, PCR
algorithm with STR regularization, the highest value of JTJ and COC are found high in BMMR technique. It is
is chosen as to calculate (r= *). On the other hand, in observed that the ICMean of all the conductivity images are
the LMR method, r is calculated as r= * (where is the improved with the BMMR method. Hence, it is concluded
highest value of the response matrix JTJ) in the first that the proposed BMMR technique reduces the projection
iteration and then it is reduced by a factor of 10 as errors and solution error and provides improved image
iteration continues. Hence, in both the STR and LMR reconstruction in EIT with better image quality and
methods, a constant regularization parameter is obtained at improved image resolution.
each iteration and as a result the local or regional
physiological attributes are not taken into account in them. Conclusions
Furthermore, due to the addition of a constant
regularization parameter to the matrix JTJ, it perturbs the A Block Matrix based Multiple Regularization (BMMR)
original system of equations and these perturbations are not technique is proposed for improving image reconstruction
based on the spectral information. Hence this perturbation in Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT). Conductivity
may introduce a significant error in the solution as well as images are reconstructed from the simulated boundary data
some unwanted solution could be obtained. In this paper a in MoBIIR algorithm with BMMR method and results are
Block Matrix based Multiple Regularization (BMMR) compared with the STR and LMR methods. Conductivity
technique is proposed in which the response matrix (JTJ) imaging studies show that the BMMR technique improves
has been partitioned into several sub-block matrices and the the impedance image quality and its spatial resolution for
largest element of each sub-block matrix has been chosen single and multiple inhomogeneity phantoms of different
as a regularization parameter for the nodes contained by geometries. It is also observed that the BMMR technique
that sub-block. A symmetric finite element mesh containing reduces the projection error as well as the solution error and
512 triangular elements and 289 nodes is used in the improves the conductivity reconstruction in EIT. Results
MoBIIR algorithm both for the forward and inverse show that the BMMR method improves the reconstructed
solution of the image reconstruction process. Conductivity image quality and increases the inhomogeneity conductivity
images of different phantom geometries are reconstructed profile by reducing background noise for all the phantom
in MoBIIR with STR, LMR and BMMR techniques using configurations. CNR, PCR, COC and ICMean are improved
different regularization parameters. Simulated boundary in BMMR technique compared to the STR and LMR
data are generated for single and multiple inhomogeneity methods. Hence it is concluded that the reconstructed image
phantoms and the conductivity images reconstructed with quality and image resolution can be enhanced with BMMR
BMMR technique. Reconstruction results obtained in the technique for conductivity imaging in EIT.
BMMR method for different regularization parameters are
compared with the STR and LMR methods. All the images
are analyzed with their normalized error terms and image References
contrast parameters defined by their elemental conductivity
profiles. It is observed that the normalized projection errors 1. Webster JG, Electrical impedance tomography. Adam Hilger
in STR and LMR becomes minimum at = 0.0001 and = Series of Biomedical Engineering, Adam Hilger, New York,
0.0001, respectively. On the other hand, in the BMMR USA 1990.
method the EV becomes minimum at = 0.01. Conductivity 2. Cheney M, David Isaacson, Jonathan C. Newell. Electrical
reconstructions also show that the EV and the E in STR and Impedance Tomography. SIAM Review, 41(1), 85101,
1999. doi:10.1137/S0036144598333613
LMR are larger than in the BMMR technique. Imaging with
= 0.0001 in all the methods (STR, LMR and BMMR) 3. Bayford RH. Bioimpedance Tomography (Electrical
Impedance Tomography). Annual Review of Biomedical
gives a more clear aspects of the proposed method Engineering, 8, 63-91, 2006. doi:10.1146/annurev.bioeng.
(BMMR) as the STR and LMR methods show the best 8.061505.095716
results at = 0.0001. Conductivity reconstruction is studied
4. Denyer CWL, Electronics for Real-Time and Three-
in detail with the simulated boundary data obtained from Dimensional Electrical Impedance Tomographs, PhD Thesis,
the phantoms with single and multiple inhomogeneity of Oxford Brookes University, 1996
different diameters and different geometric positions. To 5. Chen Z, Brown EN and Barbieri R. Assessment of
compare the image reconstruction and image quality in the Autonomic Control and Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia Using
STR, LMR and BMMR methods, the conductivity Point Process Models of Human Heart Beat Dynamics. IEEE
reconstruction is conducted first with = 0.01 and then Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 56(7), 1791-
1802, 2009.
with = 0.0001. For further studies, the conductivity
45
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
6. Fabrizi L, McEwan A, Oh T, Woo EJ, Holder DS. An 21. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. Studying the Boundary Data Profile
electrode addressing protocol for imaging brain function with of A Practical Phantom for Medical Electrical Impedance
electrical impedance tomography using a 16-channel semi- Tomography with Different Electrode Geometries.
parallel system. Physiol. Meas., 30, S85S101, 2009. Proceedings of The World Congress on Medical Physics and
doi:10.1088/0967-3334/30/6/S06 Biomedical Engineering-2009 Sept 712, 2009, Munich,
Germany, IFMBE Proceedings 25/II, pp. 925929.
7. Bagshaw AP, Liston AD, Bayford RH, Tizzard A, Gibson
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03879-2_258
AP, Tidswell AT, Sparkes MK, Dehghani H, Binnie CD and
Holder DS. Electrical impedance tomography of human brain 22. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. A Stainless Steel Electrode
function using reconstruction algorithms based on the finite Phantom to Study the Forward Problem of Electrical
element method. NeuroImage 20, 752764, 2003. Impedance Tomography (EIT). Sensors & Transducers
doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00301-X Journal, 104(5), 33-40, 2009.
8. Murphy D, Burton P, Coombs R, Tarassenko L and Rolfe P. 23. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. A Simple Instrumentation
Impedance Imaging in the Newborn. Clin. Phys. Physiol. Calibration Technique for Electrical Impedance Tomography
Meas., 8, Suppl. A, 131-40, 1987. (EIT) Using A 16 Electrode Phantom. Proceedings of The
Fifth Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and
9. Hinz J, Neumann P, Dudykevych T, Andersson LG, Wrigge
Engineering (IEEE CASE 2009), Bangalore, August 22 to
H, Burchardi H, and Hedenstierna G. Regional Ventilation by
25, pp. 347-352. doi:10.1109/COASE.2009.5234117
Electrical Impedance Tomography: A Comparison With
Ventilation Scintigraphy in Pigs. Chest, 124, 314322, 2003. 24. Holder DS, Hanquan Y and Rao A. Some practical biological
doi:10.1378/chest.124.1.314 phantoms for calibrating multifrequency electrical impedance
tomography. Physiol. Meas., 17, A167-A177, 1996.
10. Noordegraaf AV, Faes TJC, Janse A, Marcus JT, Heethaar
doi:10.1088/0967-3334/17/4A/021
RM, Postmus PE and de Vries PMJM. Improvement of
cardiac imaging in electrical impedance tomography by 25. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. Resistivity Imaging of a
means of a new electrode configuration. Physiol. Meas., 17, Reconfigurable Phantom With Circular Inhomogeneities in
179188, 1996. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/17/3/004 2D-Electrical Impedance Tomography. Measurement, 44(3),
518-526, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2010.11.015
11. Hope TA and Iles SE. Technology review: The use of
electrical impedance scanning in the detection of breast 26. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. A Reconfigurable Practical
cancer. Breast Cancer Res., 6, 69-74, 2004. Phantom for Studying the 2 D Electrical Impedance
doi:10.1186/bcr744 Tomography (EIT) Using a FEM Based Forward Solver, 10th
International Conference on Biomedical Applications of
12. Dickin F and Wang M. Electrical resistance tomography for
Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT 2009), School of
process applications. Meas. Sci. and Technol., 7, 247, 1996.
Mathematics, The University of Manchester, UK, 16th-19th
doi:10.1088/0957-0233/7/3/005
June 2009.
13. Stephensona DR, Rodgersa TL, Manna R and York TA.
27. Lionheart WRB. EIT reconstruction algorithms: pitfalls,
Application of Three-Dimensional Electrical Impedance
challenges and recent developments. Physiol. Meas., 25,
Tomography to Investigate Fluid Mixing in a Stirred Vessel.
125142, 2004. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/25/1/021
13th European Conference on Mixing, London, 14-17 April
2009. 28. Kolehmainen V, Vauhkonen M, Karjalainen PA, Kaipio JP.
Assessment of errors in static electrical impedance
14. Kotre CJ. Subsurface electrical impedance imaging:
tomography with adjacent and trigonometric current patterns.
measurement strategy, image reconstruction and in vivo
Physiol Meas. 18(4), 289-303, 1997. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/
results. Physiol. Meas., 17, A197A204, 1996.
18/4/003
doi:10.1088/0967-3334/17/4A/024
29. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. A Study of Practical Biological
15. Linderholm P, Marescot L, Loke MH, and Renaud P. Cell
Phantoms with Simple Instrumentation for Electrical
Culture Imaging Using Microimpedance Tomography. IEEE
Impedance Tomography (EIT). Proceedings of IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 55(1), 138-146,
International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
2008. doi:10.1109/TBME.2007.910649
Conference (I2MTC2009), Singapore, 5th - 7th May 2009,
16. Denyer CWL. Electronics for real-time and three- pp 511-516. doi:10.1109/IMTC.2009.5168503
dimensional electrical impedance tomographs. PhD Thesis
30. Riu PJ, Rosell J, Lozano A and Pall-Areny R. Multi-
Oxford Brookes University, January 1996.
frequency static imaging in electrical impedance tomography:
17. Huang CN, Yu FM and Chung HY. The Scanning Data Part 1 instrumentation requirements. Med. Biol. Eng.
Collection Strategy for Enhancing the Quality of Electrical Comput., 33(6), 784-792, 1995. doi:10.1007/BF02523010
Impedance Tomography. IEEE Transactions on
31. Bera TK and Nagaraju J. A Multifrequency Constant Current
Instrumentation And Measurement, 57(6), 1193-1198, 2008.
Source for Medical Electrical Impedance Tomography.
doi:10.1109/TIM.2007.915149
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
18. Metherall P. Three Dimensional Electrical Impedance Systems in Medicine and Biology 2010 (IEEE ICSMB 2010),
Tomography of the Human Thorax. PhD Thesis, University 16th-18th Dec2010, Kharagpur, India, pp-290-295.
of Sheffield, January 1998. doi: 10.1109/ICSMB.2010.5735387
19. Brown BH. Medical impedance tomography and process 32. Loh WW, Pinheiro PAT, Dickin FJ and Waterfall RC. Low
impedance tomography: a brief review. Measurement common mode error data collection strategy for electrical
Science & Technology, 12, 991-996, 2001. resistance tomography. Electronics Letters, 34(15), 1998.
doi:10.1088/0957-0233/12/8/301 doi:10.1049/el:19980846
20. Hou WD, and Mo YL. Increasing image resolution in 33. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt Jr. EM and Boone JM.
electrical impedance tomography. Electronics Letters, 38, The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Lippincott
701-702, 2002. doi:10.1049/el:20020477 Williams & Wilkins; 2nd edition, 2001.
46
Bera et al.: Improving conductivity image quality using BMMR technique in EIT. J Electr Bioimp, 2, 33-47, 2011
47