Advertisement

Multilevel Methods for Inverse Bioelectric Field Problems

  • C. R. Johnson
  • M. Mohr
  • U. Rüde
  • A. Samsonov
  • K. Zyp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 20)

Abstract

The reconstruction of bioelectric fields from non-invasive measurements can be used as a powerful new diagnostic tool in cardiology and neurology. Mathematically, the reconstruction of a bioelectric field can be modeled as an inverse problem for a potential equation. This problem is ill-posed and requires special treatment, in particular either regularization or an otherwise suitable restriction of the solution space.

The differential equation itself can be discretized by finite differences or finite elements and thus gives rise to a large sparse linear systems for which multigrid is one of the most efficient solvers, but regularization, adaptive mesh refinement, and efficient solution techniques must be combined to solve the inverse bioelectric field problem efficiently. While multigrid algorithms can reduce the compute times substantially, new local regularization techniques can be used to improve the quality of the reconstruction. Local mesh refinement can be used to increase the resolution in domains of increased activity, but must be used with care because refined meshes worsen the ill-conditioning of the inverse problem.

Keywords

Inverse Problem Multigrid Method Forward Problem Inverse Solution Adaptive Mesh Refinement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pebbles — User’s Guide. www.sfb013.uni-linz.ac.at/~reitz/pebbles.html.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. E. Alcouffe, A. Brandt, J. E. Dendy, and J. W. Painter. The multi-grid methods for the diffusion equation with strongly discontinuous coefficients. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 2:430–454, 1981.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Brandt. Multigrid techniques: 1984 guide with applications to fluid dynamics. GMD-Studien Nr. 85. Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung, St. Augustin, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. R. Foster and H. P. Schwan. Dielectric properties of tissues and biological materials: A critical review. Critical Reviews in Biomed. Eng., 17:25–104, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Greenbaum. Iterative Methods for Solving Linear Systems. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics. SIAM, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. C. Hansen. Analysis of discrete ill-posed problems by means of the L-curve. SIAM Review, 34(4):561–580, 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. R. Johnson and R. S. MacLeod. Inverse solutions for electric and potential field imaging. In R. L. Barbour and M. J. Carvlin, editors, Physiological Imaging, Spectroscopy, and Early Detection Diagnostic Methods, volume 1887, pages 130–139. SPIE, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. R. Johnson, R. S. MacLeod, and M. A. Matheson. Computer simulations reveal complexity of electrical activity in the human thorax. Comp. in Physics, 6(3):230–237, May/June 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Kickinger. Algebraic multigrid for discrete elliptic second order problems. Technical report, MGNet, November 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Korab. Mapping the body’s electrical fields. Access: High-performance computing magazine, pages 14–15, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. L. Lawson and R. J. Hanson. Solving Least Squares Problems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. S. MacLeod and D. H. Brooks. Recent progress in inverse problems in electrocardiology. IEEE Eng. in Med. & Biol. Soc. Magazine, 17(1):73–83, January 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. S. MacLeod and D. H. Brooks. Validation approaches for electrocardiographic inverse problems. In Advances in Computational Biomedicine. WIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. J. Messinger-Rapport and Y. Rudy. Regularization of the inverse problem in electrocardiography: A model study. Math. Biosci., 89:79–118, 1988.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Mohr and U. Rüde. Multilevel Techniques for the Solution of the Inverse Problem of Electrocardiography. In E. Dick, K. Riemslagh, and J. Vierendeels, editors, Multigrid Methods VI, Proceedings of the Sixth European Multigrid Conference, volume 14 of Lecture Note in Computational Science and Engineering, pages 186–192. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. A. Morozov. Methods for Solving Incorrectly Posed Problems. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. S. Oster and Y. Rudy. Regional regularization of the electrocardiographic inverse problem: A model study using spherical geometry. IEEE Trans Biomed. Eng., 44(2): 188–199, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U. Rüde. Mathematical and Computational Techniques for Multilevel Adaptive Methods, volume 13 of Frontiers in Applied Mathematics. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. W. Ruge and K. Stüben. Algebraic multigrid (AMG). In S. F. McCormick, editor, Multigrid Methods, volume 3 of Frontiers in Applied Mathematics, pages 73–130. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. A. Schmidt, C. R. Johnson, J. C. Eason, and R. S. MacLeod. Applications of automatic mesh generation and adaptive methods in computational medicine. In I. Babuska, J. E. Flaherty, W. D. Henshaw, J. E. Hopcroft, J. E. Oliger, and T. Tezduyar, editors, Modeling, Mesh Generation, and Adaptive Methods for Partial Differential Equations, pages 367–390. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Vanrumste, G. Van Hoey, P. Boon, M. D’Havé, and I. Lemahieu. Inverse calculations in EEG source analysis applying the finite difference method, reciprocity and lead fields. In Proceedings of 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, volume 20, part 4/6, pages 2112-2115, Hong Kong, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Verfürth. A Review of A Posteriori Error Estimation and Adaptive Mesh-Refinement Techniques. Wiley Teubner, New York, Stuttgart, 1996. ISBN 0-471-96795-5.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. M. Weinstein, L. Zhukov, and C. R. Johnson. Lead-field bases for EEG source imaging. Annals of Biomédical Engineering, 28:1–7, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Wolters, S. Reitzinger, A. Basermann, S. Burkhardt, U. Hartmann, F. Kruggel, and A. Anwander. Improved tissue modelling and fast solver methods for high-resolution FE-modelling in EEG/MEG-source localization. In J. Nenonen, R. J. Ilmoniemi, and T. Katila, editors, Biomag 2000, Proc. of the 12th Internat. Conf. on Biomagnetism.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Zetlmeisl. Performance Optimization of Numerically Intensive Codes — A Case Study from Biomédical Engineering. Studienarbeit, Lehrstuhl Informatik 10, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. R. Johnson
    • 1
  • M. Mohr
    • 2
  • U. Rüde
    • 2
  • A. Samsonov
    • 1
  • K. Zyp
    • 1
  1. 1.Scientific Computing and Imaging InstituteUniversity of UtahUSA
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Informatik 10 (Systemsimulation)Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergGermany

Personalised recommendations