Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) uses body surface electrical stimulation and measurements to create conductivity images; it shows promise as a non-invasive technology to monitor the distribution of lung ventilation. Most applications of EIT have placed electrodes in a 2D ring around the thorax, and thus produced 2D cross-sectional images. These images are unable to distinguish out-of-plane contributions, or to image volumetric effects. Volumetric EIT can be calculated using multiple electrode planes and a 3D reconstruction algorithm. However, while 3D reconstruction algorithms are available, little has been done to understand the performance of 3D EIT in terms of the measurement configurations available. The goal of this paper is to characterize the phantom and in vivo performance of 3D EIT with two electrode planes. First, phantom measurements are used to measure the reconstruction characteristics of seven stimulation and measurement configurations. Measurements were then performed on eight healthy volunteers as a function of body posture, postures, and with various electrode configurations. Phantom results indicate that 3D EIT using two rings of electrodes provides reasonable resolution in the electrode plane but low vertical resolution. For volunteers, functional EIT images are created from inhalation curve features to analyze the effect of posture (standing, sitting, supine and decline) on regional lung behaviour. An ability to detect vertical changes in lung volume distribution was shown for two electrode configurations. Based on tank and volunteer results, we recommend the use of the 'square' stimulation and measurement pattern for two electrode plane EIT.

Additional Metadata
Keywords 3D lung imaging, electrical impedance tomography, image reconstruction
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/37/6/922
Journal Physiological Measurement
Citation
Wagenaar, J. (Justin), & Adler, A. (2016). Electrical impedance tomography in 3D using two electrode planes: Characterization and evaluation. Physiological Measurement, 37(6), 922–937. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/37/6/922