Open Access

A high accuracy voltage approximation model based on object-oriented sensitivity matrix estimation (OO-SME model) in electrical impedance tomography


Cite

Fig. 1

Flowchart of conductivity reconstruction with the OO-SME model.
Flowchart of conductivity reconstruction with the OO-SME model.

Fig. 2

Mesh, conductivity of background- and object-fields
Mesh, conductivity of background- and object-fields

Fig. 3

Voltage changes of different objects in the simulation.
Voltage changes of different objects in the simulation.

Fig. 4

Reconstructed conductivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the simulation. (a) Object-fields; (b) Linear model; (c) Sensitivity updating model; (d) Second-order sensitivity model; (e) OO-SME model.
Reconstructed conductivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the simulation. (a) Object-fields; (b) Linear model; (c) Sensitivity updating model; (d) Second-order sensitivity model; (e) OO-SME model.

Fig. 5

Comparison of RA of reconstructed conductivity based on the linear model, sensitivity updating model, second-order sensitivity model, and OO-SME model in the simulation.
Comparison of RA of reconstructed conductivity based on the linear model, sensitivity updating model, second-order sensitivity model, and OO-SME model in the simulation.

Fig. 6

Experimental setup of EIT system
Experimental setup of EIT system

Fig. 7

Voltage changes of different objects in the experiment.
Voltage changes of different objects in the experiment.

Fig. 8

Reconstructed conductivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the experiment. (a) Object-fields; (b) Linear model; (c) Sensitivity updating model; (d) Second-order sensitivity model; (e) OO-SME model.
Reconstructed conductivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the experiment. (a) Object-fields; (b) Linear model; (c) Sensitivity updating model; (d) Second-order sensitivity model; (e) OO-SME model.

Fig. 9

Comparison of RA of reconstructed conductivity based on the linear model, sensitivity updating model, second-order sensitivity model, and OO-SME model in the experiment.
Comparison of RA of reconstructed conductivity based on the linear model, sensitivity updating model, second-order sensitivity model, and OO-SME model in the experiment.

Fig. 10

Comparison between ΔU* and u(Δσ) based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the simulation.
Comparison between ΔU* and u(Δσ) based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the simulation.

Fig. 11

Comparison of components of u(Δσ) with different objects in the simulation.
Comparison of components of u(Δσ) with different objects in the simulation.

Fig. 12

Comparison of sensitivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the simulation. (a) Object-field; (b) Sb in linear model; (c) Sb* in sensitivity updating model; (d) Sb + Sb† in second-order sensitivity model; (e) So* in OO-SME model.
Comparison of sensitivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the simulation. (a) Object-field; (b) Sb in linear model; (c) Sb* in sensitivity updating model; (d) Sb + Sb† in second-order sensitivity model; (e) So* in OO-SME model.

Fig. 13

Comparison of sensitivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the experiment. (a) Object-field; (b) Sb in linear model; (c) Sb* in sensitivity updating model; (d) Sb + Sb† in second-order sensitivity model; (e) So* in OO-SME model.
Comparison of sensitivity based on different conductivity reconstruction models in the experiment. (a) Object-field; (b) Sb in linear model; (c) Sb* in sensitivity updating model; (d) Sb + Sb† in second-order sensitivity model; (e) So* in OO-SME model.