A comparison of two methods for choosing the regularization parameter for the inverse problem of electrocardiography

David A. Lowther, Robert D. Throne, Lorraine G. Olson, John Robert Windle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

We have previously compared both generalized eigensystem (GES) and Tikhonov regularization methods for estimating epicardial potentials from measured body surface potentials. Both of these methods require the choice of a regularization parameter. In this study we compare two methods for choosing this parameter: the Composite Residual Error and Smoothing Operator (CRESO) method, and a new Zero Crossing (ZC) method. We compared both CRESO and ZC methods for zero and first order GES and Tikhonov regularization methods on a swine model and found that the ZC method sometimes produces smaller errors, but only for small noise levels.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)257-261
Number of pages5
JournalBiomedical Sciences Instrumentation
Volume38
StatePublished - Sep 23 2002

Fingerprint

Electrocardiography
Inverse problems
Composite materials
Surface potential
Swine

Keywords

  • Inverse electrocardiography
  • Parameter selection
  • Regularization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hardware and Architecture

Cite this

A comparison of two methods for choosing the regularization parameter for the inverse problem of electrocardiography. / Lowther, David A.; Throne, Robert D.; Olson, Lorraine G.; Windle, John Robert.

In: Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, Vol. 38, 23.09.2002, p. 257-261.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{da23d6a4b90b4e29ac76e5daa74e520a,
title = "A comparison of two methods for choosing the regularization parameter for the inverse problem of electrocardiography",
abstract = "We have previously compared both generalized eigensystem (GES) and Tikhonov regularization methods for estimating epicardial potentials from measured body surface potentials. Both of these methods require the choice of a regularization parameter. In this study we compare two methods for choosing this parameter: the Composite Residual Error and Smoothing Operator (CRESO) method, and a new Zero Crossing (ZC) method. We compared both CRESO and ZC methods for zero and first order GES and Tikhonov regularization methods on a swine model and found that the ZC method sometimes produces smaller errors, but only for small noise levels.",
keywords = "Inverse electrocardiography, Parameter selection, Regularization",
author = "Lowther, {David A.} and Throne, {Robert D.} and Olson, {Lorraine G.} and Windle, {John Robert}",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
day = "23",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "257--261",
journal = "Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation",
issn = "0067-8856",
publisher = "ISA - Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of two methods for choosing the regularization parameter for the inverse problem of electrocardiography

AU - Lowther, David A.

AU - Throne, Robert D.

AU - Olson, Lorraine G.

AU - Windle, John Robert

PY - 2002/9/23

Y1 - 2002/9/23

N2 - We have previously compared both generalized eigensystem (GES) and Tikhonov regularization methods for estimating epicardial potentials from measured body surface potentials. Both of these methods require the choice of a regularization parameter. In this study we compare two methods for choosing this parameter: the Composite Residual Error and Smoothing Operator (CRESO) method, and a new Zero Crossing (ZC) method. We compared both CRESO and ZC methods for zero and first order GES and Tikhonov regularization methods on a swine model and found that the ZC method sometimes produces smaller errors, but only for small noise levels.

AB - We have previously compared both generalized eigensystem (GES) and Tikhonov regularization methods for estimating epicardial potentials from measured body surface potentials. Both of these methods require the choice of a regularization parameter. In this study we compare two methods for choosing this parameter: the Composite Residual Error and Smoothing Operator (CRESO) method, and a new Zero Crossing (ZC) method. We compared both CRESO and ZC methods for zero and first order GES and Tikhonov regularization methods on a swine model and found that the ZC method sometimes produces smaller errors, but only for small noise levels.

KW - Inverse electrocardiography

KW - Parameter selection

KW - Regularization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036038662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036038662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 257

EP - 261

JO - Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation

JF - Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation

SN - 0067-8856

ER -