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.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Electrical impedance tomography (EIT), impedance imaging, induced-current EIT (ICEIT), magnetic induction tomography (MIT), multimodal tomography (MMT)
Persistent URL
Journal IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Gürsoy, D. (Doǧa), Mamatjan, Y. (Yasin), Adler, A, & Scharfetter, H. (Hermann). (2011). Enhancing impedance imaging through multimodal tomography. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 58(11), 3215–3224. doi:10.1109/TBME.2011.2165714