Home

About

Advanced Search

Browse by Discipline

Scientific Societies

E-print Alerts

Add E-prints

E-print Network
FAQHELPSITE MAPCONTACT US


  Advanced Search  

 
AIMED LEAD METHOD (ALM) VS DIRECT BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD (BEM)
 

Summary: AIMED LEAD METHOD (ALM) VS
DIRECT BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD (BEM)
1. The direct inference of epicardial potentials using the boundary element method (BEM)
has been carefully studied; yet, even with optimal regularization, relative errors between
inferred and actual epicardial potentials range from 0.43 to more than 1 when applied to
humans.
2. In the aimed-lead method (ALM), epicardial potentials are inferred from weighted sums
of multipolar cardiac-equivalent sources.
3. Determining epicardial potentials from multipolar sources may improve potential esti-
mates because multipole terms:
·Need not be dependent on heart geometry.
·May be better regularized because they are more likely to be uncorrelated than epicar-
dial potentials.
ABSTRACT
Epicardial potentials are commonly inferred by calculating coefficients, which directly link epicardial
and body surface potentials, via the boundary-element method (BEM). Epicardial potentials may also be
found from multipolar cardiac-equivalent sources using the aimed-lead method (ALM). Because the
inverse solution for the multipole sources in the ALM need not be dependent on heart geometry and may
meet correlation constraints assumed for many regularization techniques better than the BEM, we
hypothesized that the ALM may yield more accurate estimates of epicardial potentials than the BEM. To

  

Source: Arthur, R. Martin - Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis

 

Collections: Biology and Medicine; Engineering