11. Theoretical Methods for Analyzing Volume Sources and Volume Conductors



11Theoretical
Methods forAnalyzing Volume Sourcesand Volume Conductors


11.1 INTRODUCTION
The first two theoretical methods of this chapter (solid angle
theorem and Miller-Geselowitz model) are used to evaluate the electric field in
a volume conductor produced by the source - that is, to solve the forward
problem. After this discussion is a presentation of methods used to evaluate
the source of the electric field from measurements made outside the source,
inside or on the surface of the volume conductor - that is, to solve the
inverse problem. These methods are important in designing electrode
configurations that optimize the capacity to obtain the desired information.
In fact, application of each of the following methods usually results
in a particular ECG-lead system. These lead systems are not discussed here in
detail because the purpose of this chapter is to show that these methods of
analysis form an independent theory of bioelectricity that is not limited to
particular ECG applications. The biomagnetic fields resulting from the electric activity of volume
sources are discussed in detail in Chapter 12.

11.2 SOLID ANGLE THEOREM
11.2.1 Inhomogeneous Double Layer
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Inhomogeneous double
layerCONDUCTOR: Infinite, homogeneous, (finite, inhomogeneous)
The solid angle theorem was developed by the German physicist
Hermann von Helmholtz in the middle of the nineteenth century. In this theory, a
double layer is used as the source. Although this topic was introduced in
Chapter 8, we now examine the structure of a double layer in somewhat greater
detail. Suppose that a point current source and a current sink (i.e., a
negative source) of the same magnitude are located close to each other. If their
strength is i and the distance between them is d, they form a
dipole moment id as discussed in Section 8.2.2. Consider now a smooth
surface of arbitrary shape lying within a volume conductor. We can uniformly
distribute many such dipoles over its surface, with each dipole placed normal to
the surface. In addition, we choose the dipole density to be a well-behaved
function of position - that is, we assume that the number of dipoles in a small
area is great enough so that the density of dipoles can be well approximated
with a continuous function. Such a source is called a double layer
(Figure 11.1). If it is denoted by p(S), then p(S) denotes a dipole moment density (dipole moment per
unit area) as a function of position, while its direction is denoted by , the surface normal. With this notation, p(S)d is a dipole whose magnitude is p(S)dS, and its direction is
normal to the surface at dS. An alternative point of view is to recognize that on one side of the
double layer, the sources form a current density J [A/m2]
whereas on the other side the sinks form a current density -J
[A/m2], and that the conducting sheet between the surfaces of the
double layer has a resistivity r.
The resistance across this sheet (of thickness d) for a unit
cross-sectional area is




R = rd
(11.1)




where   
R
= double layer resistance times unit area [Wm²]

 
r
= resistivity of the medium [Wm]

 
d
= thickness of the double layer [m]
Of course, the double layer arises only in the limit that
d 0 while J such that Jd p remains finite.



Fig. 11.1. Structure of a double layer. The double layer is formed
when the dipole density increases to the point that it may be considered a
continuum. In addition, we require that J , d 0, and Jd p.
From Ohm's law we note that the double layer has a potential difference
of




Vd = F1 - F2 = Jrd
(11.2)




where   
Vd
= voltage difference over the double layer [V]

 
F1, F2,

= potentials on both sides of the double layer [V]

 
J
= double layer current density [A/m2]

 
r
= resistivity of the medium [Wm]

 
d
= double layer thickness [m]
By definition, the double layer forms a dipole moment per unit
surface area of




p = Jd
(11.3)




where   
p
= dipole moment per unit area [A/m]

 
J
= double layer current density [A/m2]

 
d
= double layer thickness [m]
As noted, in the general case (nonuniform double layer),
p and J are functions of position. Strictly we require d
0 while J such that Jd = p remains finite. (In the case where
d is not uniform, then for Equation 11.2 to be a good approximation it is
required that DF not vary
significantly over lateral distances several times d.) Since p is the dipole moment per unit area (with the direction from negative
to positive source), dS is an elementary dipole. Its field, given by
Equation 8.12 is:





(11.4)
since the direction of and d are the same. Now the solid angle dW, as defined by Stratton (1941), is:





(11.5)
Thus






(11.6)



Fig. 11.2. A sketch of some isopotential points on an isopotential
line of the electric field generated by a uniform double layer. That these
points are equipotential is shown by the identity of the solid angle
magnitudes. According to the convention chosen in Equation 11.5, the sign of
the solid angle is negative.
The double layer generates a potential field given by Equation 11.6,
where dW is the element of
solid angle, as seen from the field point as the point of observation (Figure
11.2). This figure provides an interpretation of the solid angle as a measure of
the opening between rays from the field point to the periphery of the double
layer, a form of three-dimensional angle. Equation 11.6 has a particularly
simple form, which readily permits an estimation of the field configuration
arising from a given double layer source function. This result was first obtained by Helmholtz, who showed that it holds
for an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic, and linear volume conductor. Later the
solid angle theorem was also applied to inhomogeneous volume conductors by
utilizing the concept of secondary sources. As discussed in Section 7.2.3, the
inhomogeneous volume conductor may be represented as a homogeneous volume
conductor including secondary sources at the sites of the boundaries. Now the
potential field of a double layer source in an inhomogeneous volume conductor
may be calculated with the solid angle theorem by applying it to the primary and
secondary sources in a homogeneous volume conductor.
The Polarity of the Potential Field
We discuss shortly the polarity of the potential field
generated by a double layer. This will clarify the minus sign in Equations 11.5
and 11.6. If the double layer is uniform, then the field point's potential is
proportional to the total solid angle subtended at the field point. It is
therefore of interest to be able to determine this solid angle. One useful
approach is the following: From the field point, draw lines (rays) to the
periphery of the double layer surface. Now construct a unit sphere centered at
the field point. The area of the sphere surface intercepted by the rays is the
solid angle. If the negative sources associated with the double layer face the
field point, then the solid angle will be positive, according to Equation 11.5.
This polarity arises from the purely arbitrary way in which the sign in Equation
11.5 was chosen. Unfortunately, the literature contains both sign choices in the
definition of the solid angle (in this book we adopted the one defined by
Stratton, 1941). For example, suppose a uniform double layer is a circular disk centered
at the origin, whose dipoles are oriented in the x direction. For a field point
along the positive x-axis, because the field point faces positive sources, the
solid angle will be negative. However, because of the minus sign in Equation
11.5, the expression 11.6 also contains a minus sign. As a consequence, the
potential, evaluated from Equation 11.6, will be positive, which is the expected
polarity.
11.2.2 Uniform Double Layer
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Uniform double
layerCONDUCTOR: Infinite, homogeneous
A uniform double layer exhibits some interesting properties
that are discussed here in this section. To begin with, we note that Equation 11.6 describes the potential field
in an infinite volume conductor due to an inhomogeneous double layer; this
reduces to the following simplified form when the double layer is uniform:





(11.7)
Consider a closed uniform double layer. When such a double layer is
seen from any point of observation, it can always be divided into two parts. One
is seen from the positive side and the other is seen from the negative side,
though each has exactly the same magnitude solid angle W, as described in Figure 11.3. (Double layer sources
having more complex form can, of course, be divided into more than two parts.)
These both produce a potential of the same magnitude, but because they have
opposite signs, they cancel each other. As a result, a closed uniform double
layer produces a zero field, when considered in its entirety. Wilson et al. (1931) applied this principle to electrocardiography,
since he understood the cardiac double layer source formulation. Suppose that
the double layer formed by the depolarization in the ventricles includes a
single wavefront, which is represented by a uniform double layer, and has the
shape of a cup. If this cup is closed with a "cover" formed by a double layer of
similar strength, then a closed surface is formed, that does not generate any
potential field. From this we can conclude that the double layer having the
shape of a cup can be replaced with a double layer having the shape of the cup's
cover, but with its double layer oriented in the same direction as the cup, as
described in Figure 11.4. From this example one can assert that two uniform
double layers with the same periphery generate identical potential fields.
The field generated by a double layer disk at distances that are much
greater than the disk radius appears to originate from a single dipole. In fact,
at large enough distances from any dipole distribution, the field will appear to
originate from a single dipole whose strength and orientation are the vector sum
of the source components, as if they were all located at the same point. This is
the reason why the electric field of the heart during the activation has a
dipolar form and the concept of a single electric heart vector (EHV), as
a description of the cardiac source, has a wide application. This is
particularly true when the activation involves only a single ventricle. The true
situation, where the right and left ventricle are simultaneously active, is more
accurately represented by two separate dipoles. This same argument may be used in explaining the effect of an
infarct on the electric field of the heart. The infarct is a region of
dead tissue; it can be represented by the absence of a double layer (i.e., an
opening in a double layer). As a consequence, closing the double layer surface
in this case introduces an additional cover, as shown in Figure 11.4. The latter
source is a direct reflection of the effect of the infarct. (The paradox in this
deduction is that the region of dead tissue is represented by an
active dipole directed inward.) Finally, we summarize the two important properties of uniform double
layers defined by the solid angle theorem:

A closed uniform double layer generates a zero external potential field.
The potential field of an open uniform double layer is completely defined
by the rim of the opening (Wikswo et al., 1979).









1
A closed double layermay be divided
intotwo parts from which ...




2
One is seen fromthe positive
side(solid angle is negative)




3
The other is seen withthe same
magnitude anglefrom the negative side(the solid angle is
positive)









4
The solid angles and therefore also the
two fields areequal in magnitude but opposite in sign and they
cancel:F2 = - F1          
Fc = F1 + F2 =
0


Fig. 11.3. A closed uniform double layer produces a zero potential
field.



Fig. 11.4. The potential field of an open uniform double layer is
completely defined by the rim of its opening.

11.3 MILLER-GESELOWITZ MODEL
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Distributed dipole, cellular
basisCONDUCTOR: Finite, homogeneous
W. T. Miller and D. B. Geselowitz (1978) developed a source
model that is based directly on the generators associated with the activation of
each cell. Their basic expression is patterned after Equation 8.23, which
assigns a dipole source density to the spatial derivative of transmembrane
voltage. For three dimensions, instead of a derivative with respect to a single
variable, a gradient (including all three variables) is required. Consequently,




i = -sVm
(11.8)




where   
i
= dipole source density [µA/cm2]

 
s
= conductivity [mS/cm]

 
Vm
= spatial derivative of transmembrane voltage
[mV/cm]
Miller and Geselowitz used published data to evaluate action potential
waveforms at various sites throughout the heart as well as times of activation.
They could thus estimate Vm(x,y,z,t) and as a
result, could evaluate the "actual" dipole moment per unit volume at all points.
For simplicity the heart was divided into a finite number of regions, and the
net dipole source strength in each region found by summing idV in that region. In determining the surface potential fields the authors considered the
number of dipole elements to be a small set (of 21) and evaluated the
contribution from each. This part of their work constituted a relatively
straightforward solution of the forward problem (dipole source in a bounded
volume conductor). The reconstructed electrocardiograms showed very reasonable
qualities.

11.4 LEAD VECTOR
11.4.1 Definition of the Lead Vector
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Dipole in a fixed
locationCONDUCTOR: Finite (infinite), inhomogeneous
We examine the potential field at a point P, within or at the
surface of a volume conductor, caused by a unit dipole (a unit vector in the x direction) in a fixed location Q, as
illustrated in Figure 11.5. (Though the theory, which we will develop, applies
to both infinite and finite volume conductors, we discuss here is only finite
volume conductors, for the sake of clarity.) Suppose that at the point P the potential FP due to the unit dipole is cx. (The potential at P must be evaluated
relative to another local point or a remote reference point. Both choices are
followed in electrophysiology, as is explained subsequently. For the present, we
assume the existence of some unspecified remote reference point.) Because of our
linearity assumption, the potential FP corresponding to a dipole
px of arbitrary magnitude px is




FP =
cx px
(11.9)
A similar expression holds for dipoles in the y and
z directions. The linearity assumption ensures that the principle of superposition
holds, and any dipole can be resolved into three orthogonal components
px, py, pz, and the potentials from each superimposed. Thus we can express the
potential FP at point
P, due to any dipole at the point Q




FP =
cx px + cy
py + cz
pz
(11.10)
where the coefficients cx,
cy, and cz are found (as described above) by
energizing the corresponding unit dipoles at point Q along x-, y-,
and z-axes, respectively, and measuring the corresponding field
potentials. Equations 11.9 and 11.10 are expressions of linearity, namely that
if the source strength is increased by a factor c, the resultant voltage
is increased by the same factor c. Since no other assumptions were
required, Equation 11.10 is valid for any linear volume conductor, even for an
inhomogeneous conductor of finite extent.



Fig. 11.5. Development of the lead vector concept.
(A) Because of linearity, the potential at a point P in the volume
conductor is linearly proportional to dipoles in each coordinate direction.
(B) By superposition the potential at the point P is proportional to
the sum of component dipoles in each coordinate direction. This
proportionality is three-dimensional and can therefore be considered as a
vector , called lead vector. (C) The potential at the point P is the scalar product of the source
dipole and the lead vector .
Equation 11.10 can be simplified if the coefficients
cx, cy, and cz are
interpreted as the components of a vector . This vector is called the lead vector. Consequently, Equation
11.10 can be written




FP =
·
(11.11)
The lead vector is a three-dimensional transfer coefficient
which describes how a dipole source at a fixed point Q inside a volume conductor
influences the potential at a point within or on the surface of the volume
conductor relative to the potential at a reference location. The value of the
lead vector depends on:

The location Q of the dipole
The location of the field point P
The shape of the volume conductor
The (distribution of the) resistivity of the volume conductor
We tacitly assume that the potential at the reference is zero
and hence does not have to be considered. Note that the value of the lead vector
is a property of the lead and volume conductor and does not depend on the
magnitude or direction of the dipole . It can be shown that in an infinite, homogeneous volume conductor the
lead vector is given by the sum of components along lines connecting the source
point with each of the two electrode points (each scaled inversely to its
physical length). The same also holds for a spherical, homogeneous volume
conductor, provided that the source is at the center.
11.4.2 Extending the Concept of Lead Vector
In the previous section we considered the lead voltage to be
measured relative to a remote reference - as it is in practice in a so-called
unipolar lead. In this section, we consider a bipolar lead formed
by a lead pair (where neither electrode is remote), and examine the
corresponding lead vector, as illustrated in Figure 11.6. For each location P0 . . . Pn of P, that
lies within or at the surface of the volume conductor, we can determine a lead
vector 0 . . . n for the dipole at a fixed location, so that, according to Equation
11.11, we have




Fi = i ·
(11.12)
Then the potential difference between any two points
Pi and Pj is




Vi j = Fi - Fj
(11.13)
This describes the voltage that would be measured by the lead
whose electrodes are at Pi and Pj. To what
lead vector does this lead voltage correspond? Consider first the vector ij
formed by




i j = i - j
(11.14)
Now the voltage between the points Pi and
Pj given by Equation 11.13 can also be written, by
substitution from Equation 11.12, as follows:




Vi j = Fi - Fj = i · - j · = i j ·
(11.15)
hence identifying i j as the lead vector for leads Pi
- Pj. From this result we can express any bipolar lead voltage
V as





(11.16)
where is a lead vector. We note that Equation 11.16 for bipolar leads is in
the same form as Equation 11.11 for monopolar leads. But Equations 11.14-11.16
can be interpreted as that we may first determine the lead vectors i and j
corresponding to unipolar leads at Pi and Pj, respectively, and then form their
vector difference, namely ij. Then the voltage between the points Pi and Pj, as
evaluated by a bipolar lead, is the scalar product of the vector ij and the
dipole , as shown in Figure 11.6 and described by Equation 11.16.



Fig. 11.6. Determination of the voltage between two
points at or within the surface of a volume conductor. (A) The potentials Fi and Fj at Pi and
Pj due to the dipole may be established with scalar products with the
lead vectors i and j , respectively. (B) For determining the voltage Vi j between
Pi and Pj, the lead vector i j = i - j is first determined. (C) The voltage Vi j is the scalar product
of the lead vector i j and the dipole .
11.4.3 Example of Lead Vector Application: Einthoven, Frank,
and Burger Triangles
As an example of lead vector application, we introduce the
concept of Einthoven triangle. It represents the lead vectors of the three limb
leads introduced by Einthoven (1908). Einthoven did not consider the effect of
the volume conductor on the lead vectors. The effect of the body surface on the
limb leads was published by Ernest Frank (1954), and the effect of the internal
inhomogeneities was published by Burger and van Milaan (1946). The corresponding
lead vector triangles are called Frank triangle and Burger triangle. In this
section we discuss these lead vector triangles in detail.
Einthoven Triangle
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Two-dimensional dipole (in the
frontal plane) in a fixed locationCONDUCTOR: Infinite, homogeneous
volume conductor or homogeneous sphere with the dipole in its center (the
trivial solution)
In Einthoven's electrocardiographic model the cardiac source is
a two-dimensional dipole in a fixed location within a volume conductor that is
either infinite and homogeneous or a homogeneous sphere with the dipole source
at its center. Einthoven first recognized that because the limbs are generally long
and thin, no significant electrocardiographic currents from the torso would be
expected to enter them. Accordingly, Einthoven realized that the potential at
the wrist was the same as at the upper arm, while that at the ankle was the same
as at the upper thigh. Einthoven consequently assumed that the functional
position of the measurement sites of the right and left arm and the left leg
corresponded to points on the torso which, in turn, bore a geometric
relationship approximating the apices of an equilateral triangle. He further
assumed that the heart generator could be approximated as a single dipole whose
position is fixed, but whose magnitude and orientation could vary. The location
of the heart dipole relative to the leads was chosen, for simplicity, to be at
the center of the equilateral triangle. (In matter of fact, the Einthoven
assumptions and model were not truly original, but were based on the earlier
suggestions of Augustus Waller (1889).) Because of the central location of the heart dipole in the Einthoven
model, the relationship between potentials at the apices of the triangle are the
same whether the medium is considered uniform and infinite in extent, or the
volume conductor is assumed to be spherical and bounded. For the unbounded case,
we can apply Equation 8.12, which may be written FP = · r /(4psr 2 ) from which we learn that the lead vector
for a surface point P is r /(4psr 2 ) - that is, along the radius vector to P.
Point P is, according to Einthoven, at the apices of the equilateral triangle.
Consequently, if the right and left arms and left foot are designated R, L, and
F, respectively, then the three corresponding lead vectors R, L, and F are the radius vectors between the origin and the
corresponding points on the equilateral triangle, as illustrated in Figure 11.7.
From the aforementioned, the potentials at these points are:




FR =
R ·
 

FL =
L ·
(11.17)

FF =
F ·
 
Einthoven defined the potential differences between the three
pairs of these three points to constitute the fundamental lead voltages in
electrocardiography. These are designated VI, VII, and VIII and are given by




VI   = FL - FR = L · - R · = (L - R ) · = I ·
 

VII  = FF - FR = F · - R · = (F - R ) · = II ·
(11.18)

VIII = FF - FL = F · - L · = (F - L ) · = III ·
 
Since R, L, and F are equal in magnitude and each is in the direction from
the origin to an apex of the equilateral triangle, then I, II, and III must lie along a leg of the triangle (since I = L - R, etc.) For example I is seen to lie oriented horizontally from the right arm to
the left arm. In summary, VI, VII, and
VIII are the three standard limb leads (or scalar leads) in
electrocardiography. From Equation 11.18 one can confirm that the three lead
vectors I, II, and III also form an equilateral triangle, the so-called
Einthoven triangle, and these are shown in Figure 11.7. The limb lead voltages are not independent, since VI +
VIII - VII = 0 , as can be verified by substituting for
the left side of this equation the component potentials from Equation 11.18,
namely (FL - FR) + (FF - FL) - (FF - FR), and noting that they
do, in fact, sum to zero. The above relationship among the standard leads is
also expressed by I· + III· - II· = 0, according to Equation 11.18. Since is arbitrary, this can be satisfied only if I + III - II = 0, which means that the lead vectors form a closed
triangle. We were already aware of this for the Einthoven lead vectors, but the
demonstration here is completely general.



Fig. 11.7. Einthoven triangle. Note the coordinate
system that has been applied (the frontal plane coordinates are shown). It is
described in detail in Appendix A.
From the geometry of the equilateral (Einthoven) triangle, we obtain
the following values for the three lead voltages. Please note that the
coordinate system differs from that introduced by Einthoven. In this textbook,
the coordinate system of Appendix is applied. In this coordinate system, the
positive directions of the x-, y-, and z-axes point
anteriorly, leftward, and superiorly, respectively.





 


(11.19)


 
For the lead vectors we obtain:




I   =
        
 

II  =   0.5 - 0.87
(11.20)

III = - 0.5 - 0.87
 
Frank Triangle
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: (Three-dimensional) dipole in a
fixed locationCONDUCTOR: Finite, homogeneous
Ernest Frank measured the lead vectors of the scalar leads by
constructing an electrolytic tank model of the human torso (Frank, 1954). The
following values were obtained for the three lead vectors of the standard leads.
Note that only the relative values of these lead vectors have any meaning
because the measurement procedure was not calibrated.




I   = - 14 + 76 + 27
 

II  =   16 + 30 - 146
(11.21)

III =   30 - 46 - 173
 
We noted earlier that since VI + VIII =
VII, a condition dictated by Kirchhof's law, the corresponding lead
vectors must form a closed triangle. One can confirm from Equation 11.21 that,
indeed, I + II - III = 0 and hence form a closed triangle. This triangle is
called the Frank triangle, and it is illustrated in Figure 11.8.
Burger Triangle
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Dipole in a fixed
locationCONDUCTOR: Finite, inhomogeneous
Lead vector concept was first introduced by H. C. Burger and J.
B. van Milaan (1946, 1947, 1948) (Burger, 1967), who also used an inhomogeneous
electrolyte tank model of the human torso to measure the lead vectors of
standard leads. The lead vectors, which they measured, are given below. Since these
vectors must necessarily form a closed triangle (just as Einthoven and Frank
triangles), this triangle has been called Burger triangle; it is shown in Figure
11.8. The absolute values of the lead vectors have no special meaning since no
calibration procedure was carried out. The lead vectors obtained were




I   = - 17 + 65 + 21
 

II  =   15 + 25 - 120
(11.22)

III =   32 - 40 - 141
 
We may compare the three triangles described so far (i.e., the
Einthoven, Frank, and Burger) by normalizing the y-component of each I vector to
100. This means that the values of the Einthoven triangle components must be
multiplied by 100, those of the Frank triangle by 100/76 = 1.32, and those of
the Burger triangle by 100/65 = 1.54. (The reader can confirm that in each case
I = 100 results.) The resulting lead vector components are
summarized in Table 11.1. One may notice from the table that in the measurements of Frank and
Burger, the introduction of the boundary of the volume conductor has a great
influence on the lead vectors. As pointed out earlier, the lead vector also
depends on the dipole location; thus these comparisons may also reflect
differences in the particular choice that was made. Figure 11.8 illustrates the
Einthoven, Frank, and Burger triangles standardized according to Table 11.1.

Table 11.1. Comparison of the lead vectors for Einthoven, Frank,
and Burger Triangles.









Lead 


Triangle 


cx


cy


cz



   cI
Einthoven   FrankBurger 
 -18-26 
100100100 
    36   32 

   cII
EinthovenFrankBurger 
   21  23 
  50  40  38 
  -87-192-185 

   cIII
EinthovenFrankBurger
   39  49
 -50 -61 -62
  -87-228-217




The shape of the Frank and Burger triangles was recently investigated
by Hyttinen et al. (1988). Instead of evaluating the lead vectors for a single
dipole location, they examined the effect of different dipole positions within
the heart. According to these studies the shape of the Frank and Burger
triangles varies strongly as a function of the location of the assumed heart
dipole . They showed that the difference between the original
Frank and Burger triangles is not necessarily so small if the dipole is placed
at other locations. Figures 11.9 and 11.10 illustrate the variation of the Frank
and Burger triangles as functions of the source location. Tables 11.2A and 11.2B
compare the lead vectors for the Einthoven, Frank, and Burger triangles from two
source locations.



Fig. 11.8. Einthoven (E), Frank (F), and Burger (B)
triangles. Note that the Einthoven triangle lies in the frontal plane, whereas
the Frank and Burger triangles are tilted out of the frontal plane. Only their
frontal projections are illustrated here.



Fig. 11.9. Variation of the Frank triangle as a
function of dipole location. The black circle in the miniature lead vector
triangles arising from the Frank torso are superimposed on the site of the
dipole origin. (From Hyttinen et al., 1988.).



Fig. 11.10. Variation of the Burger triangle as a
function of source location. (From Hyttinen et al., 1988.).

Table 11.2A. Dipole in the center of the heart
(septum):Coefficient for Frank = 1.546; Burger = 1.471









Lead 


Triangle 


cx


cy


cz



   cI
Einthoven   FrankBurger 
  -2.8-31.2 
100100100 
    -1.8   -6.4 

   cII
EinthovenFrankBurger 
   16  97 
  50  53  46 
  -87  -88-162 

   cIII
EinthovenFrankBurger
   19  135
 -50 -47 -57
  -87  -86-163





Table 11.2B. Dipole in the center of the transverse projection of
the heart, (0.5 cm anterior, 2 cm left and inferior from the dipole in Table
11.2A):Coefficient for Frank = 1.976; Burger = 1.784









Lead 


Triangle 


cx


cy


cz



   cI
Einthoven   FrankBurger 
  -6.6-3.0 
100100100 
    12      -8.2 

   cII
EinthovenFrankBurger 
   23  33 
  50  44  62 
  -87-117-217 

   cIII
EinthovenFrankBurger
   30  30
 -50 -60 -39
  -87-130-209





11.5 IMAGE SURFACE
11.5.1 The Definition of the Image Surface
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Dipole in a fixed
locationCONDUCTOR: Finite (infinite), inhomogeneous
For a fixed-source dipole lying within a given volume
conductor, the lead vector depends solely on the location of the field point. A
lead vector can be found associated with each point on the volume conductor
surface. The tips of these lead vectors sweep out a surface of its own. This
latter surface is known as the image surface. One could, in principle, consider a physical surface lying
within a volume conductor of finite or infinite extent and evaluate an
image surface for it in the same way as described above. However, most interest
is concentrated on the properties of fields at the bounding surface of volume
conductors, since this is where potentials are available for noninvasive
measurement. Consequently, the preconditions adopted in this section are for a
dipole source (multiple sources can be considered by superposition) lying in a
bounded conducting region. We accept, without proof, that any physical volume conductor surface
has an associated image surface for each dipole source location. This seems,
intuitively, to require only that no two points on the physical surface have the
same lead vector - a likely condition for convex surfaces. The image surface is
a useful tool in characterizing the properties of the volume conductor, such as
the effect of the boundary shape or of internal inhomogeneities, independent of
the effect of the leads. That is, one could compare image surfaces arising with
different inhomogeneities without having to consider any particular lead system.
A simple example of an image surface is given by a uniform spherical
volume conductor with dipole source at its center. We have seen that for this
situation the unipolar lead vector is proportional to the radius vector from the
center of the sphere to the surface field point. Therefore, the image surface
for a centric source in a uniform sphere is also a sphere. We now describe how to construct the image surface for any linear
volume conductor of arbitrary shape. It is done by placing a unit dipole source
at a chosen point within the conductor in the direction of each coordinate axis
and then measuring the corresponding potential at every point on the surface.
For the unit vector along the x-axis, the potentials correspond precisely to the
lead vector component in the x direction, as is clear from Equation
11.10. Similarly for the y and z directions, and therefore, the
lead vectors can be determined in space from these measurements, and they form
the image surface for the chosen source location. This procedure and the
resulting image surface are illustrated in Figure 11.11.
11.5.2 Points Located Inside the Volume Conductor
As noted above, it is not necessary to restrict the physical
surface to points on the boundary of the volume conductor. If we examine the
potential inside the volume conductor, we find that it is greater than on the
surface; that is, the closer to the dipole the measurements are made, the larger
the voltage, and therefore, the longer the corresponding lead vector. This means
that points inside the volume conductor transform to points in the image space
that lie outside the image surface. The dipole source location itself transforms
to infinity in the image space. Note that the shadings in Figures 11.11, 11.12, and 11.13 are not
arbitrary; rather, they illustrate that for the region inside the volume
conductor, the corresponding region in the image space is farther from the
origin..



Fig. 11.11. Construction of the image surface for a
source point at a volume conductor of arbitrary shape, illustrated in two
dimensions. A one-to-one relation is established between points on the surface
of the volume conductor and the image surface. (A) Unit vectors are placed at the source location. (B) By measuring the corresponding potentials at each surface point,
the lead vector can be determined. (C) The locus described by the family of lead vectors form the image
surface.
11.5.3 Points Located Inside the Image Surface
We now examine the real-space behavior of points that lie in
the image space within the image surface. Suppose that an image point is
designated P' and that an arbitrary line has been drawn through it. The line
intersects the image surface in points P1' and P2'.
Further, the point P' divides this line inside the image surface as follows:





(11.23)
From Figure 11.12 it is easy to see the following relationship
between the lead vectors 1, 2, and s:





(11.24)
Therefore, the voltage, measured in the real space from the
point P must fulfill the requirement:





(11.25)
The point that fulfills this requirement in the real space can
be found in the following way: We connect between the points P1 and P2 two
resistors in series having the resistance ratio of a/b. The point P is at the
interconnection of these resistors. (We must choose Ra and Rb large enough so
that the current through this pathway has a negligible effect on 1 and 2.).



Fig. 11.12. Determination of the point P in the real
space corresponding to an image space point P' located inside the image
surface.
11.5.4 Application of the Image Surface to the Synthesis of
Leads
In this section, we examine how the image surface concept can
be applied to the identification of an unknown dipole inside the volume
conductor from measurements on the surface. Our initial task is to synthesize an
orthonormal lead system for the measurement of the dipole. The concept
"orthonormal" denotes that a lead system is both (1) orthogonal and (2)
normalized; that is, the three measured components of the dipole are orthogonal
and their magnitudes are measured with equal sensitivity. That means, the lead
voltage corresponding to equal-value components of the dipole source is the
same. To begin, we construct the image surface of the volume conductor in
relation to the known location of the dipole. Now we want to find two points on
the surface of the volume conductor such that the voltage between them is
proportional only to the y-component of the dipole. Mathematically, this can be
formulated as:




V21 = 21 · = c21x px +
c21y py + c21z
pz
(11.26)
and we seek a lead vector 21, which both lies in the image space and is oriented
solely in the direction of the y-axis. This corresponds to identifying
any pair of points on the image surface that are located at the intersections of
a line directed parallel to the y-axis. The voltage measured between
those points in real space is consequently proportional only to the
y-component of the dipole. To obtain the largest possible signal (in
order to minimize the noise), we select from all image space points that fulfill
the requirement discussed above, the one with the longest segment (maximum lead
vector), as illustrated in Figure 11.13. If we want to measure all three orthogonal components of the dipole
source, we repeat this procedure for the z and x directions.
Because the resulting (maximum) lead vectors are usually not of equal length, we
equalize the measured signals with a resistor network to obtain both an
orthogonal and a normalized lead system. Such a normalizing procedure is
described in Figure 11.13 for a two-dimensional system. In this case two
resistors, RA and RB, form a simple
voltage-divider, and the output voltage is reduced from the input by
RB/(RA + RB). We choose
this ratio to compensate for a lead vector amplitude that is too large. Note
that the assumed voltage-divider behavior requires that the voltage-measuring
circuit (amplifier) has a sufficiently high input impedance for negligible
loading..



Fig. 11.13. Construction of an orthonormal lead system utilizing
the image surface. The lead 34 for surface points P3 - P4 is solely in the z
direction, whereas lead 12 established for surface points P1 - P2 is solely in
the y direction. Since 34 / 12 = (a + b)/b, the resistor network Ra and Rb is
inscribed to reduce the voltage from (P3 - P4) by b/(a + b), hence making the
effective z-lead equal to the y-lead in magnitude.
11.5.5 Image Surface of Homogeneous Human Torso
We consider here the image surface of the homogeneous human
torso, as determined by Ernest Frank (1954). Frank constructed a tank model
having the form of the thorax. It was oriented upside down because it was easier
to insert and manipulate the source dipole from the larger opening of the model
at the level of the abdomen. The model was filled with a salt solution and
therefore formed a finite, homogeneous model. Frank adopted the following coordinate system for the model: The model
was divided into 12 levels with horizontal planes at increments of 5 cm (2
inches). The center of the heart was located on level 6 about 4 cm to the front
of the plane located at the midline of the right and left arms, and about 2.5 cm
to the left of the sagittal plane located at the midline of the model. On each
horizontal plane, 16 points were established by drawing 8 lines through the
midline of the model (within increments of 22.5°). The intersections of these
lines on the surface of the model were labeled with letters A through P in a
clockwise direction starting from the left side, as shown in Figure 11.14. Note
that the coordinate axis nomenclature used here is not the same as that adopted
by Frank, since the consistent coordinate system of the Appendix A has been
used. Figures 11.15, 11.16, and 11.17 illustrate the image surface measured
by Frank in the three projections - the frontal, sagittal, and transverse
planes. The figures also show the points corresponding to the Einthoven limb
leads, which in this case form the Frank triangle.



Fig. 11.14. The Frank torso model and coordinate system. (The
latter has been related to correspond with the system adopted in this text and
discussed in the Appendix A.).



Fig. 11.15. The image surface of the Frank torso model in frontal
view.



Fig. 11.16. The image surface of the Frank torso model in sagittal
view.



Fig. 11.17. The image surface of the Frank torso model in
transverse view.
11.5.6 Recent Image Surface Studies
In recent years the image surface for the human torso has been
investigated using computer models. In these models one can introduce not only
the effect of body shape but also inhomogeneities such as the lungs,
intracavitary blood masses, surface muscle layers, and so on. One such study is
that of Horá ek (1971), who included the effect of body shape, lungs, and
intracavitary blood. Horá ek observed that the lungs and the intracavitary blood
masses can substantially distort the image surface and consequently cause
variations in the body surface potential distribution. However, because of the
complexity of the effect, no simple universal statement can be made to describe
the influence of the inhomogeneities. A modified Horá ek model that includes the skeletal muscle was
developed and studied by Gulrajani and Mailloux (1983). The latter authors chose
to examine the effects of modifications introduced by inhomogeneities in terms
of effects on body surface potentials rather than on the image surface per se.

11.6 LEAD FIELD
11.6.1 Concepts Used in Connection with Lead Fields
It is useful to start a discussion of the lead field by first
introducing the concept of sensitivity distribution. As noted in Section
11.4.3, the lead vector has different values for different source locations. In
other words, for a given field point, the length and direction of the lead
vector vary as a function of the source location. For a fixed field point
location, one can assign to each possible source point the value of the lead
vector. In this way we establish a lead vector field, which is distributed
throughout the volume conductor. Because the lead vector indicates the
sensitivity of the lead to the dipole source through V = · (Equation 11.16), the distribution of the magnitude
and the direction of the lead vector is at the same time the distribution of
the sensitivity of the lead to the dipole source as a function of its
location and orientation. This is further illustrated in Figure 11.18. (It
should be emphasized that the concept of sensitivity distribution is not limited
to the detection of bioelectric sources. The same concept is applicable also to
the measurement of tissue impedance.) For later use we will define the concepts of isosensitivity
surface or isosensitivity line and half-sensitivity volume. An
isosensitivity surface is a surface in the volume conductor, where the absolute
value of the sensitivity is constant. When sensitivity distributions are
illustrated with two-dimensional figures, the isosensitivity surface is
illustrated with isosensitivity line(s). The concept of isosensitivity surface
is used to enhance our view of the distribution of the magnitude of the
sensitivity. The isosensitivity surface where the absolute value of the
sensitivity is one half of its maximum value within the volume conductor
separates a volume called half-sensitivity volume. This concept can be used to
indicate how concentrated the detector's sensitivity distribution is..



Fig. 11.18. The concept of sensitivity distribution.
11.6.2 Definition of the Lead Field
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Volume sourceCONDUCTOR:
Finite (infinite), inhomogeneous
The concept of lead field is a straightforward extension
of the concept of lead vector. In the evaluation of a lead field, one follows a
procedure that is just the reverse of that followed in obtaining the image
surface. These may be contrasted as follows (see Figure 11.19).
In our definition of the image surface (Section 11.5.1):


The source was a dipole located at a fixed point.

The measurement point was varied over the surface of the
volume conductor (Figure 11.11A).
The image surface was generated by the tips of the lead vectors
associated with all surface sites (Figure 11.11C). In evaluating the lead field we proceed the other way around:


We assume a fixed electrode pair defining a lead (fixed
measurement sites).

We observe the behavior of the lead vector as a function of the location of the dipole source varying throughout the volume conductor (Figure 11.19A)

We assign to the location of (which for a volume source is a field of dipole
elements k ).
With this latter procedure, it is possible to evaluate the
variation of the lead vector within the volume conductor. This field of lead vectors is
called the lead field L, as noted earlier and illustrated in Figure 11.19A.
Therefore, the lead field theory applies to distributed volume sources. The
procedure may be carried out with a finite or an infinite volume conductor. In
any physically realizable system, the volume conductor is necessarily finite, of
course. Thus the preconditions for the discussion on the lead field are those
defined above. From the behavior of the lead vector as a function of the location k of the dipole source , we can easily determine the lead voltage
VL generated by a distributed volume source (see
Figure11.19B). The contribution Vk of each elementary dipole
k to the lead voltage is obtained, as was
explained in Section 11.4.1, with Equation 11.16 by forming the scalar product
of the dipole element k and the lead vector k at that location, namely Vk = k · k. The total contribution of all dipole
elements - that is, the total lead voltage - is, according to the principle of
superposition, the sum of the contributions of each dipole element k , namely
VL = S k · k . Mathematically this will be
described later by Equations 11.30 and 11.31, where the dipole element k is replaced by the impressed current
source element idV (where i has the dimensions of dipole moment per unit volume).
The lead field has a very important property, which arises from the
reciprocity theorem of Helmholtz. It is that for any lead, the lead field
LE is exactly the same as the current flow field
resulting from the application of a unit current I r , called
the reciprocal current, to the lead (Figure 11.19C). In this procedure
the lead is said to be reciprocally energized. It is this correspondence
that makes the lead field concept so very powerful in the following way:


With the concept of lead field it is possible both to
visualize and to evaluate quantitatively the sensitivity distribution of a
lead within a volume conductor, since it is the same as the field of a
reciprocal current.

The actual measurement of sensitivity distribution (using
either a torso-shaped tank model or a computer model) can be accomplished more
easily using reciprocity.

Because the reciprocal current corresponds to the stimulating
current introduced by a lead in electric stimulation, they have exactly the
same distribution.

The sensitivity distribution in the measurement of electric
impedance of the tissue may be similarly determined with the concept of lead
field.

Because the principle of reciprocity and the concept of lead
field are valid also in magnetic fields, all of these points are true for the
corresponding magnetic methods as well.

Furthermore, the concept of lead field easily explains the
similarities and differences in the sensitivity distributions between the
corresponding electric and magnetic methods.
The lead field may be visualized either as a field of lead vectors, as
in Figure 11.19C, or with lead field current flow lines, as in Figure 11.19D.
The relationship between these two methods is, obviously, that the lead vectors
are tangents to the lead field current flow lines and that their length is
proportional to the density of the flow lines. The reciprocity theorem is
further discussed in the next section in greater detail.



Fig. 11.19. The definition of the lead field and
different ways to illustrate it. (A) When defining the lead field, we assume a fixed electrode pair
constituting a lead, and we observe the behavior of the lead vector as a function of the location k of the dipole source within
the volume conductor. This field of lead vectors is the lead field L. (B) When we know the lead vector at each location k, we obtain the contribution of each dipole
element k to the lead voltage:
Vk = k · k . Due to superposition, the total lead
voltage VL is the sum of the lead voltage elements. (C) Based on the reciprocity theorem, the lead field LE is the same as the electric current field if a
(reciprocal) current I r of 1 A is introduced to the
lead. The lead voltage due to a volume source of distribution i is obtained through integrating the dot product of the
lead field current density and the source density throughout the volume
source. (D) The lead field may also be illustrated with the lead field
current flow lines.
11.6.3 Reciprocity Theorem: the Historical Approach
The lead field theory that is discussed in this section is
based on a general theory of reciprocity, introduced by Hermann von
Helmholtz in 1853 (Helmholtz, 1853). Its application to the formulation of lead
field theory was carried out 100 years later by Richard McFee and Franklin D.
Johnston (1953, 1954,ab) as well as by Robert Plonsey (1963) and by Jaakko
Malmivuo (1976). Before describing the lead field theory in more detail, we
consider first the reciprocity theorem of Helmholtz. Though Helmholtz introduced the principle of reciprocity in connection
with bioelectricity, it is a general property of linear systems, not limited
only to bioelectricity. Helmholtz described the principle of reciprocity, in its
original form, with the following example, which, it should be noted, also
includes (for the first time) the principle of superposition. A galvanometer is connected to the surface of the body. Now every
single element of a biological electromotive surface produces such a current in
the galvanometer circuit as would flow through that element itself if its
electromotive force were impressed on the galvanometer wire. If one adds the
effects of all the electromotive surface elements, the effect of each of which
are found in the manner described, he will have the value of the total current
through the galvanometer. In other words, it is possible to swap the location of the (dipole)
source and the detector without any change in the detected signal amplitudes.
(Note that Helmholtz used a voltage double layer source and measured the
current produced by it, whereas in our case the source is considered to
be a current dipole or a collection of dipoles such as implied in a double
layer source, whereas the measured signal is a voltage.) Helmholtz illustrated the leading principle of the reciprocity theorem
with the following example, described in Figure 11.20. This example includes two
cases: case 1 and case 2.



Fig. 11.20. Illustration of the reciprocity theorem of
Helmholtz.

We first consider case 1: A galvanometer (i.e., an electric current
detector) G is connected at the surface of the volume conductor. Inside the
conductor there is a differential element of double layer source, whose voltage
is Vd and which causes a current IL in the
galvanometer circuit. We now consider case 2: The double layer source element is first
removed from the volume conductor. Then the galvanometer is replaced by an
electromotive force of the same magnitude Vd as the voltage of
the double layer source. This produces a reciprocal current ir
through the same differential area at the (removed) double layer source element
in the volume conductor. Now the reciprocity theorem of Helmholtz asserts that the
current IL  flowing in case 1 through the
galvanometer is equal to the current ir  flowing
in case 2 through the differential area located at the (removed) double layer
source element. This result is expressed in equation form as:




(11.27)
where the left-hand side of the equation denotes case 1 and the
right-hand side case 2.
Demonstration of the Consistency of the Reciprocity
Theorem
It is easy to demonstrate that Equation 11.27 does not depend
on the area of the double layer source. This is illustrated by the following
examples. If we make the area of the double layer K times larger, the
current IL through the galvanometer in case 1 is now (by the
application of superposition) K times larger - that is,
KIL. In case 2, the electromotive force Vd
in the galvanometer wire remains the same, because it represents the (unchanged)
voltage over the double layer source in case 1. Therefore, it still produces the
same current density in the source area. But because the source area is now
K times larger, the total current through it is also K times
larger - that is, Kir. Consequently, Equation 11.27 becomes





(11.27A)
and dividing both sides by K returns it to the
expression arising from the original area. (In the above one should keep in mind
that the original area A and KA are assumed to be very small so
that ir and Vd can be considered uniform.)
11.6.4 Lead Field Theory: the Historical Approach
In this section we derive the basic equation of the lead field
from the original formulation of Helmholtz (expressed by Equation 11.27) based
on a description of current double layer source and lead voltage. As stated
before, Helmholtz described the source as a voltage double layer element
Vd, whose effect is evaluated by a measured lead current
IL. Alternatively, as is done presently, the source may be
described as a current dipole layer element i, whereas the signal is the lead voltage
VL produced by it. We can directly obtain these expressions
from those of Helmholtz by application of the principle of duality. The
result, illustrated in Figure 11.21, is discussed below..












Fig. 11.21. Derivation of the equation for lead field
theory.
Since Helmholtz's theorem applies to a discrete source, we make the
following assumptions:


The lateral extent of the voltage double layer element
Vd is differential - that is, Ds.

The separation of the poles of the corresponding dipole
element iDs
is Dd, where i is an applied current density so that iDd
has the dimensions of a double layer source.

The conductivity at the source point is s.

The resistance of the galvanometer circuit between the
measurement points equals R.
In case 1 and case 2 we may further evaluate the following
expressions. For case 1:


Instead of the current IL measured by the
galvanometer, we can examine the related lead voltage VL =
RIL, or IL =
VL/R. (To prevent the galvanometer from affecting the
volume conductor currents and voltages in a real situation, R should be chosen, but this choice does not affect the validity of
this expression.)

Instead of reference to a voltage source
Vd, we now emphasize the concomitant current source i = Vds/Dd (Equation 11.2), where by rearranging we have
Vd = iDd/s.
For case 2:


Instead of examining the reciprocal current density
ir at the (removed) source point we can evaluate the related
lead field current density L = ir/Ds. These are connected by ir =
Ds · L. The dot product is required here because the current
ir is the component of the reciprocal current flowing
through the source area in the direction of the source i. This can also be writtenir =
DsL · i/|i|.

The required voltage source Vd in the
circuit connected to the conductor can be achieved if we use a reciprocal
current source Ir = Vd/R, since
then we have Vd = IrR.
Substituting these equivalencies into the equation of Helmholtz, namely
Equation 11.27, we obtain:





(11.28)
where the left-hand side of the Equation 11.28 denotes case 1
and the right-hand side case 2 in the Helmholtz procedure, respectively. Solving
for the lead voltage VL in Equation 11.28, we obtain





(11.29)
where Ds
Dd = Dv, which is the volume element
of the source. (In the limit, Dv dv.) By extending Equation 11.29 throughout all source
elements, and choosing the reciprocal current to be a unit current
Ir = 1 A, we may write:





(11.30)
where LE denotes an electric lead field due to unit reciprocal
current. Note that although i was originally defined as a current density, it may also
be interpreted as a volume dipole density, as is clear in Equation 11.30 and by
their similar dimensions. Equation 11.30 is the most important equation in the
lead field theory, as it describes the lead voltage (the electric signal in a
lead) produced by an arbitrary volume source described by i(x,y,z). It may be stated in words as follows:
To determine the lead voltage produced by a volume source, we first
generate the lead field in the volume conductor by feeding a unit (reciprocal)
current to the lead. Every element of the volume source contributes to the lead
voltage a component equal to the scalar product of the lead field current
density and the volume source element divided by the conductivity. If the volume conductor is homogeneous throughout the source region, we
may move the coefficient 1/s
outside the integral and write:





(11.31)
According to Equation 11.31, the lead field has an important property:
it equals the lead sensitivity distribution. This means that at each point of
the volume conductor, the absolute value of the lead field current density
equals to the magnitude of the lead sensitivity, and the direction of the lead
field current equals the direction of the lead sensitivity. It should be noted
that the lead field fully takes into account the effect of the volume conductor
boundary and internal inhomogeneities; hence these have an effect on the form of
the lead field. (The concept of secondary sources is contained within lead field
theory through the effect of the inhomogeneities on the form of the lead field.)
Lead field theory is a very powerful tool in bioelectromagnetism. It
ties together the sensitivity distribution of the measurement of bioelectric
sources, distribution of stimulation energy, and sensitivity distribution of
impedance measurements, as is explained later. In general, if the lead and the
volume conductor are known, the distribution of the lead sensitivity may be
determined, based upon lead field theory. On the other hand, if the source and
the volume conductor are known, the distribution of the actual field may be
determined directly without using the lead field concept. All this holds for
corresponding biomagnetic phenomena as well.
11.6.5 Field-Theoretic Proof of the Reciprocity Theorem
A brief explanation of Helmholtz's reciprocity theorem was
given in Section 11.6.3, without offering a mathematical proof. That explanation
was based on the ideas of the original publication of Helmholtz (1853). The
field-theoretic proof of the reciprocity theorem as described by Plonsey (1963)
is presented below.
Proof of the Reciprocity Theorem
Consider an arbitrary volume v bounded by the surface
S and having a conductivity s (which may be a function of position). If F1 and F2 are any two scalar fields
in v, the following vector identities must be satisfied:




· F1
(sF2 ) =
F1 · (sF2 ) +
sF1 ·
F2

(11.32)

· F2
(sF1 ) =
F2 · (sF1 ) +
sF2 ·
F1

 
If we subtract the second equation from the first one,
integrate term by term over the volume v, and use the divergence theorem,
we obtain





(11.33)
Since F1 · F2 = F2 · F1 , these
terms cancel out in deriving Equation 11.33 from 11.32. The derivation of
Equation 11.33 is well known in the physical sciences; it is one of a number of
forms of Green's theorem. Now we assume that F1 is the scalar potential in volume v
due to sources within it specified by the equation




IF = - · i
(11.34)
(Thus IF is a flow source, as defined
earlier in Equation 8.35.) We assume further that F2 is the scalar potential produced solely by
current caused to cross the surface S with a current density J
[A/m2]. Usually we assume that J flows from conducting
electrodes of high conductivity compared with s, so that the direction of J is normal to the
bounding surface. In this case J can be specified as a scalar
corresponding to the flow into v. (The scalar potential F2 is later identified as
the reciprocal electric scalar potential due to the reciprocal current
Ir fed to the lead.) Since the current J is solenoidal,
it satisfies





(11.35)
The scalar fields F1 and F2 satisfy the following equations:




· (sF1 ) =
- IF
(11.36)
since IF is a source of F1 and




sF2 ·
d = J dS
(11.37)
since the field F2 is established by the applied current
J. Since -sF2 carries
the direction of the current (= L ) and d is the outward surface normal, Equation 11.37 shows that for our
chosen signs J is positive for an inflow of current. No current due to
the source IF crosses the boundary surface (since in this case
it is totally insulating), and hence




F1 ·
d = 0
(11.38)
For the source J at the surface, the current must be
solenoidal everywhere in v; hence:




· (sF2) =
0
(11.39)
We may rewrite Equation 11.33 by substituting Equations 11.38
and 11.37 into its left-hand side, and Equations 11.38 and 11.36 into its
right-hand side, obtaining





(11.40)
which is the desired form of the reciprocity theorem.
The Reciprocity Theorem of Helmholtz
The reciprocity theorem of Helmholtz can be derived from
Equation 11.40 in the following way. Consider that F2 (the reciprocal electric scalar
potential) arises from a particular distribution J, where an inflow
of a unit (reciprocal) current is concentrated at point b on the surface and an outflow of a unit (reciprocal)
current at point a on the surface, where a and b are position vectors shown in Figure 11.22. Note that this
is opposite to the current flow direction given in Plonsey (1963). (With this
sign notation, current dipoles in the direction of the lead field current
produce a positive signal in the lead, as will be seen later in Equation 11.50
(Malmivuo, 1976).) The above can be expressed mathematically:




J = s(b - ) - s(a - )
(11.41)
where s is a two-dimensional unit Dirac delta function on the
bounding surface, and hence the magnitude of both inflow and outflow is unity.
Consider IF to consist of a point source of current
I0 at 1 and a point sink of equal magnitude at 2, where 1 and 2 are the position vectors shown in Figure 11.22. Now
IF can be written:




IF = I0[v(1 - ) - v(2 - )]
(11.42)
where v is a three-dimensional Dirac delta function. Substituting Equations 11.41 and 11.42 into Equation 11.40, we obtain





(11.43)
If we choose I0 to be unity, then this
equation shows that the voltage between two arbitrary surface points a and b
due to a unit current supplied internally between points 1 and 2 equals the
voltage between these same points 2 and 1 due to a unit current applied
externally (reciprocally) between points a and b. This is essentially the
reciprocity theorem of Helmholtz.



Fig. 11.22. Geometry for deriving the reciprocity theorem.
Deriving the Equations for Lead Field
The value of F2 (r1) can be specified in
terms of the field at 2 by means of a Taylor series expansion:




F2
(1) = F2 (2) + F2 ·
(1 - 2) + . . .

(11.44)
Note that since the field F2 is established by currents introduced at the
surface into a source-free region, it is well behaved internally and a Taylor
series can always be generated. If we let (1 - 2 ) approach zero and the current I0
approach infinity, such that their product remains constant, then a dipole
moment of I0(1 - 2 ) = 0 is created. Under these conditions the
higher-order terms in Equation 11.44 can be neglected, and we obtain




I0[F2 (2) - F2 (1)] = - I0F2 ·
(1 - 2 ) = - F2 ·
0
(11.45)
Denoting the voltage between the points a and b as




VLE = F1 (a ) - F1 (b )
(11.46)
and substituting Equations 11.45 and 11.46 into Equation 11.43,
we obtain




VLE = -F2 ·
0
(11.47)
Note that -F2
corresponds precisely to a description of the sensitivity distribution
associated with this particular lead, and is in fact the lead vector (field).
Since no assumption has been made concerning the volume conductor, we have found
a powerful method for quantitatively evaluating lead vector fields of arbitrary
leads on arbitrary shaped inhomogeneous volume conductors. The actual bioelectric sources may be characterized as a volume
distribution i with dimensions of current dipole moment per unit volume.
Equation 11.47 may be generalized to the case of such a volume distribution of
current dipoles with a dipole moment density of i to obtain





(11.48)
The quantity F2
was earlier defined as the reciprocal electric potential field in the
volume conductor due to unit reciprocal current flow in the pickup leads a and b
and is designated in the following as FLE. Plonsey (1963) has termed this potential
field as the lead field in his field-theoretic proof of the reciprocity theorem.
In this text, however, the term "lead field" denotes the current density
field due to reciprocal application of current in the lead. They are
related, of course, by LE = -sFLE. Using the vector identity · (FLEi ) = FLE · i + FLE · i and the divergence theorem, we obtain from Equation 11.48





(11.49)
Because the impressed current sources are totally contained
within S, the integrand is zero everywhere on S, and the first
term on the right-hand side of Equation 11.49 is zero; thus we obtain





(11.50)
The quantity - · i is the strength of the impressed current source and is
called the flow (or flux) source IF as
defined in Equation 8.35. Thus Equation 11.50 can be expressed as





(11.51)
McFee and Johnston (1953) designated the vector field LE = -sF = sLE the lead field. Here the symbol ELE
denotes the reciprocal electric field due to unit reciprocal current, and the
conductivity of the volume conductor. Using this formulation, we may rewrite
Equation 11.48 as:





(11.52)
where LE is the lead field arising from unit reciprocal current
(the reader should review the definition of J in Equation 11.41). But
Equation 11.52 corresponds precisely to Equation 11.30 (assuming
Ir = 1 [A]). Consequently, Equation 11.52 confirms Equation
11.30, which is the equation characterizing lead field theory, introduced
earlier.
11.6.6 Summary of the Lead Field Theory Equations
In this section we summarize the equations of the lead field
theory for electric leads. (Equations for magnetic leads are given in the next
chapter.) We consider the situation in Figure 11.23, where two disklike
electrodes in a volume conductor form the bipolar electric lead. To determine the lead field, a unit reciprocal current
Ir is fed to the lead. It generates a reciprocal electric
potential field FLE in
the volume conductor (this potential field was defined as F2 in Section 11.6.5 in the
proof of the reciprocity theorem). If the electrodes are parallel and their
lateral dimensions are large compared to their separation, FLE is uniform in the
central region. The negative gradient of this electric potential field FLE is the reciprocal
electric field, LE :




LE =
FLE

(11.53)
The reciprocal electric field is related to the reciprocal current
field by the conductivity of the medium:




LE = sLE
(11.54)
This reciprocal current field s is defined as the lead field. Now, when we know the lead field LE, we can remove the reciprocal current generator (of unit
current) from the lead. The electric signal VLE in the lead
due to current sources i in the volume conductor is obtained from the equation





(11.30)
If the volume conductor is homogeneous, the conductivity s may be taken in front of the integral
operation, and we obtain





(11.31)
Section 11.6.1 introduced the concept of isosensitivity surface
and its special case half-sensitivity surface which bounds a
half-sensitivity volume. The isosensitivity surfaces, including the
half-sensitivity surface, are surfaces where the lead field current density LE is constant. In a homogeneous region of a volume
conductor, where s is constant,
the isosensitivity surfaces are, of course, surfaces where the reciprocal
electric field LE is constant. In certain cases the isosensitivity surfaces
coincide with the isopotential surfaces. These cases include those, where all
isopotential surfaces are parallel planes, concentric cylinders, or concentric
spheres. Then the surfaces where the electric field is constant (i.e. where two
adjoining isopotential surfaces are separated by a constant distance) have the
same form as well. But in a general case, where the isopotential surfaces are
irregular so that two adjacent surfaces are not a constant distance apart the
surfaces of constant electric field do not have the same form. As summarized in Figure 11.23, as a consequence of the reciprocal
energization of an electric lead, the following three fields are created in the
volume conductor: electric potential field FLE (illustrated with isopotential surfaces),
electric field LE (illustrated with field lines) and current field LE (illustrated with current flow lines and called the lead
field). In addition to these three fields we defined a fourth field of surfaces
(or lines): the field of isosensitivity surfaces. When the conductivity is
isotropic, the electric field lines coincide with the current flow lines. In a
symmetric case where all isopotential surfaces are parallel planes, concentric
cylinders, or concentric spheres, the isopotential surfaces and the
isosensitivity surfaces coincide. In an ideal lead field for detecting the equivalent dipole moment of a
volume source (see the following section) the isopotential surfaces are parallel
planes. To achieve this situation, the volume conductor must also be
homogeneous. Thus, in such a case from the aforementioned four fields, the
electric field lines coincide with the lead field flow lines and the
isopotential surfaces coincide with the isosensitivity surfaces..



Fig. 11.23. Basic form of a bipolar electric lead,
where



 
Ir
= unit reciprocal current;

 
FLE
= reciprocal electric scalar potential field;

 
LE
= reciprocal electric field;

 
LE
= lead field:

 
VLE
= voltage in the lead due to the volume source i in the volume conductor; and

 
s
= conductivity of the medium.
11.6.7 Ideal Lead Field of a Lead Detecting the Equivalent
Electric Dipole of a Volume Source
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Volume sourceCONDUCTOR:
Infinite, homogeneous
In this section we determine the desired form of the lead field of a
detector that measures the equivalent (resultant) electric dipole moment of a
distributed volume source located in an infinite homogeneous volume conductor.
As discussed in Section 7.3.2, a dipole in a fixed location has three
independent variables, the magnitudes of the x-, y-, and
z-components. These can be measured with either unipolar or bipolar
electrodes locating at the coordinate axes. The vectorial sum of these
measurements is the dipole moment of the dipole. Because a volume source is formed from a distribution of dipole
elements, it follows from the principle of superposition that the dipole moment
of a volume source equals to the sum of the dipole moments of its dipole
elements. This can be determined by measuring the x-, y-, and
z-components of all the elementary dipoles and their sums are the
x-, y-, and z-components of the equivalent dipole moment of
the volume source, respectively. To introduce the important equations we show
this fact also in mathematical form. The equivalent electric dipole moment of a volume source may be
evaluated from its flow source description. It was shown in Equation 8.35
(Section 8.5) that the flow source density IF is defined by
the impressed current density (Plonsey, 1971) as




IF =
· i
(8.35)
The resultant (electric) dipole moment of such a source can be
shown to be





(11.55)
This dipole moment has three components. Because = x + y + z, these three components may be written as:





(11.56)
We consider the x-component of the dipole moment. Noting
Equation 8.35 and using the vector identity · (xi) = x · i + i · x, we obtain





(11.57)
Using the divergence theorem, we may rewrite the first term on
the right-hand side of Equation 11.57 as





(11.58)
Since there can be no impressed current density on the surface,
this term vanishes. Therefore, and because x = (x/x) + (y/y) + (z/z) = i , we obtain for the x-component of the dipole
moment





(11.59)
In fact, recalling the dual identity of i as a dipole moment per unit volume, we can write Equation
11.59 directly. Equation 11.59 can be described as follows: one component of the
equivalent electric dipole (moment) of a volume source may be evaluated from the
sum of corresponding components of the distributed dipole elements of the volume
source independent of their location. A comparison of Equation 11.59 with
Equation 11.49 identifies FL with
x. Consequently, we see that
this summation is, in fact, accomplished with a lead system with the following
properties (see Figure 11.24):


The lead field current density is given by L = x = (so that it is everywhere in the x direction only).

The lead field current density is uniform throughout the
source area.

Three such identical, mutually perpendicular lead fields form
the three orthogonal components of a complete lead system.



Fig. 11.24. Ideal lead field (sensitivity
distribution) for detecting the electric dipole moment of a volume source.
Each component is uniform in one direction throughout the source region, and
the components are mutually orthogonal. (A) Lead field current density vector presentation. (B) Lead field current flow line presentation. This is the physiological meaning of the measurement of the
electric dipole. (See the text for details.)
Physiological Meaning of Electric Dipole
The sensitivity distribution (i.e., the lead field),
illustrated in Figure 11.24, is the physiological meaning of the
measurement of the (equivalent) electric dipole of a volume source. The concept "physiological meaning" can be explained as follows: When
considering the forward problem, the lead field illustrates what is the
contribution (effect) of each active cell on the signals of the lead system.
When one is considering the inverse problem, the lead field illustrates
similarly the most probable distribution and orientation of active cells when a
signal is detected in a lead..11.6.8 Application of Lead Field Theory to the
Einthoven Limb Leads
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Volume sourceCONDUCTOR:
Infinite, homogeneous
To build a bridge between lead field and lead vector and to
clarify the result of Equation 11.59 illustrated in Figure 11.24, we apply lead
field theory to the Einthoven limb leads. Previously, in Section 11.4.3, the Einthoven triangle was discussed as
an application of the lead vector concept. The volume source of the heart was
modeled with a (two-dimensional) dipole in the frontal plane. It was shown that
the signal in each limb lead VI, VII, and
VIII is proportional to the projections of the equivalent
dipole on the corresponding lead vectors. Instead of modeling the volume source of the heart with the resultant
of its dipole elements, we could have determined the contribution of each dipole
element to the limb leads and summed up these contributions. In this procedure
one can use the lead field theory to illustrate the lead fields - that is, the
sensitivities of the limb leads. The idealized lead fields of the limb leads are
uniform in the directions of the edges of the Einthoven triangle. Figure 11.25
illustrates the sensitivity distribution of the (ideal) Einthoven limb leads
within the area of the heart. This is the physiological meaning of the measurement of the
Einthoven limb leads (see the previous section).



Fig. 11.25. The ideal lead field (sensitivity
distribution) of Einthoven limb leads VI,
VII, and VIII. This is the physiological
meaning of the measurement of the limb leads.
11.6.9 Synthesization of the Ideal Lead Field for the
Detection of the Electric Dipole Moment of a Volume Source
Synthesization of the Ideal Lead Fields in Infinite,
Homogeneous Volume Conductors
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Volume sourceCONDUCTOR:
Infinite, homogeneous
We begin the discussion on synthesis of ideal lead fields for
detecting the equivalent dipole moment of a volume source by discussing the
properties of unipolar and bipolar leads in infinite, homogeneous volume
conductors. If the dimensions of a distributed volume source are small in relation
to the distance to the point of observation, we can consider it to be a lumped
(discrete) dipole. The detection of such an electric dipole is possible to
accomplish through unipolar measurements on each coordinate axis, as illustrated
on the left hand side of Figure 11.26A. If the dimensions of the distributed
volume source are large in relation to the measurement distance, the lead field
of a unipolar measurement is not directed in the desired direction in different
areas of the volume source and the magnitude of the sensitivity is larger in the
areas closer to the electrode than farther away. This is illustrated on the
right hand side of Figure 11.26A. The quality of the lead field both in its direction and its magnitude
is considerably improved when using a bipolar lead, where the electrodes are
located symmetrically on both sides of the volume source, as illustrated in
Figure 11.26B. (Note also that in the bipolar measurement the difference in
potential between the electrodes is twice the unipolar potential relative to the
center.) The quality of the lead field of a bipolar lead in measuring volume
sources with large dimensions is further increased by using large electrodes,
whose dimensions are comparable to the source dimensions. This is illustrated in
Figure 11.26C.





 
ELECTRODE
CONFIGURATION
LEAD FIELD OF ONE
COMPONENT
  

A
UNIPOLAR LEADS, POINT
ELECTRODES
 







B
BIPOLAR LEADS, POINT
ELECTRODES
 





C
BIPOLAR LEADS, LARGE
ELECTRODES
 



Fig. 11.26. Properties of unipolar and bipolar leads
in detecting the equivalent electric dipole moment of a volume source.
(A) If the dimensions of the volume source are small compared to the
measurement distance the simplest method is to use point electrodes and
unipolar leads on the coordinate axes. (B) For volume sources with large dimensions the quality of the lead
field is considerably improved with the application of bipolar leads. (C) Increasing the size of the electrodes further improves the
quality of the leads.
Synthesization of the Ideal Lead Fields in Finite,
Homogeneous Volume Conductors
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Volume sourceCONDUCTOR:
Finite, homogeneous
Using large electrodes is in practice impossible. In the following we
describe a method to design a lead to detect the equivalent electric dipole
moment of a volume source in a finite, homogeneous volume conductor of
arbitrary shape (Brody, 1957). According to Section 11.6.7, such a lead, when energized reciprocally,
produces three orthogonal, uniform, and homogeneous lead fields. We consider the
construction of one of them. This may be done according to the following steps:


Suppose that the volume conductor has the arbitrary shape
shown in Figure 11.27A and that our purpose is to synthesize an ideal lead
field in the y direction within this region.

We extend the volume conductor in the direction of the
y-axis in both directions so that it forms a cylinder limited by two
planes in the zx direction and having the cross section of the original
volume conductor (Figure 11.27B).

Then we plate the end planes of the cylinder with a
well-conducting material. If electrodes are connected to these plates and a
reciprocal current is fed to them, an ideal lead field is created in the
volume conductor (Figure 11.27B).

Thereafter the extension of the volume conductor is slit as
described graphically in Figure 11.27C, generating isolated "fibers." These
cuts do not modify the form of the lead field because they are made along the
flow lines which are nowhere intersected, as is clear in Figure 11.27C.

Each of the volume conductor "fibers" may now be replaced
with discrete resistances of equal resistive value, as illustrated in Figure
11.27D.
The above procedure is repeated in the direction of the z- and
x-axes. Corresponding to each discrete resistor, an electrode must be
placed on the volume conductor. If the number of electrodes is sufficiently
large, the ideal lead field (requiring an infinite number of electrodes) will be
well approximated. Since one wishes to keep the number of electrodes to a
minimum, one must explore the acceptability of reduced numbers of electrodes,
make the spacing of electrodes unequal to strengthen accuracy only in the heart
region, and use the same electrode for more than a single component lead.
Note once again, that this method may be applied to a finite
homogeneous volume conductor having an arbitrary shape. In general, the
effect of internal inhomogeneities cannot be corrected with electrodes located
on the surface of the conductor with the method described above.



Fig. 11.27. Synthesizing an ideal lead field within a finite,
homogeneous volume conductor.
11.6.10 Special Properties of Electric Lead Fields
Two special properties of the lead fields are summarized as
follows:


If the volume conductor is cut or an inhomogeneity boundary
is inserted along a lead field current flow line, the form of the lead field
does not change. Only the intensity of the field changes in relation to the
conductivity.

The reciprocity theorem may be applied to the reciprocal
situation. This means that it is possible in electrolytic tank models to feed
a "reciprocally reciprocal" current to the dipole in the conductor and to
measure the signal from the lead and interpret the result as having been
obtained by feeding the reciprocal current to the lead and measuring the
signal from the dipole.
The latter is easily proved by imagining that the lead field is a
result of the mapping of the behavior of the lead vector as a function of the
source location, as discussed in Section 11.6.2. This mapping is done by feeding
unit currents in each coordinate direction at each point of the source area and
by measuring the corresponding voltages at the lead, as explained in Section
11.4.1. The benefit of this "reciprocally reciprocal" arrangement is that for
technical reasons, the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement may be improved
while still having the advantage of the interpretations associated with the lead
field current distribution. The special properties of electric lead fields are discussed in more
detail in connection with magnetic lead fields.
11.6.11 Relationship Between the Image Surface and the Lead
Field
In this section, the relationship between the image surface and
the lead field is described with the aid of Table 11.3 and Figure 11.28.
The source in the concept of the image surface is a dipole. This
can be a discrete dipole (at a point), or it can be a dipole element of a
distributed volume source. In the lead field concept, the source may be a
distributed volume source or a discrete dipole. The conductor in both
cases was previously considered to be finite (and inhomogeneous). However, the
theory holds for infinite volume conductors as well. Source location in the image surface was fixed and the
measurement points were variable and forming a continuum. In characterizing the
lead field, we note that the situation is the opposite: The measurement points
are fixed while the source point varies (continuously). This means that in the
image surface the lead vectors are mapped as a function of the measurement
point, but in the lead field the mapping is a function of the source point. The
image surface takes into account field points lying on a surface, whereas in the
lead field the source point may lie within a three-dimensional volume. Geometrically, in the image surface concept, the ends of the lead
vectors form the image surface. In the lead field concept, the field of lead
vectors establish the lead field. The equations for the application of the lead vector and image surface
(Equation 11.16) and the lead field (Equations 11.30 and 11.31) are, in
principle, of the same form. The main difference is that the equation for the
lead field is in integral form. This comes from the fact that it is applied to a
volume source. An important consequence of the reciprocity theorem of Helmholtz is
that the lead field is identical to the current field resulting from feeding the
(unit) reciprocal current to the lead.

Table 11.3. Relationship between the image surface and the lead
field












 


Image surface


Lead field



Preconditions
 
 

    Source
Dipole in a fixed location
Volume source (dipole elements i     distributed in a
volume)

    Conductor
Infinite or finite
Infinite or finite

Theory
 
 

    Basic
principle  
Measurement points P
vary,    source point Q
fixed,    see Figure 11.28A
Measurement points P fixed    source
point Q varies,    see Figure 11.28B

    Procedure
Lead vectors are mapped as a
    function ofthe measurement
    point; their end points form
    the image surface
Lead vectors are mapped as
a    function of the source
point;    these lead vectors form the
    lead field

    Geometric        presentation   
See Figure 11.28C
See Figure 11.28D and Figure 11.28E

Application of    the
theory
A lead, with a desired
sensitivity        in a
certain direction, may be    found from a
lead vector in    image space in that
direction        VL
= ·
The contribution of the source to
the    lead is evaluated from the
equation      





Note:
(1) There is similarity between the variables: LE , i

 
(2) It follows from the reciprocity theorem that i is the same as the current density fieldin the
volume conductor due to feeding the reciprocal current
Ir of 1 A to the lead.



Fig. 11.28. Relationship between image surface and lead field.
11.7 GABOR-NELSON THEOREM
PRECONDITIONS:SOURCE: Moving (equivalent) dipole moment
of a volume source (position, direction, and magnitude) CONDUCTOR:
Finite, homogeneous
11.7.1 Determination of the Dipole Moment
In 1954, Dennis Gabor and Clifford V. Nelson presented a
mathematical method that can be used in solving for the equivalent dipole of a
volume source in a homogeneous volume conductor (Gabor and Nelson, 1954). The
method, which also gives the location of the dipole, is based on potential
measurements at the surface of the volume conductor and on the knowledge of the
volume conductor's geometry. The details are provided in this section. As described in Section 8.5 (Equation 8.35), the flow (flux) source
density IF of a distribution of impressed current density i is




IF =
· i
(8.35)
and the resulting (electric) dipole moment of such a system is
evaluated from the definition (Equation 11.55)








(11.55)





where   

= the radius vector

 
dv
= the volume element
The dipole moment has three components, as was illustrated by Equation
11.56. We now examine the x-component of this dipole moment. We develop
it in the following way: The explanation for each step is given on the
right-hand side of the column.






px

from Equation 11.57

 

because
IF = · i (Equation 8.35)

 

from Equation 7.3 we have · i = · sF ; for a
uniform conducting medium this reduces to · i = s · F


 

· (xF) =
x · F + x · F is a vector
identity. Integrating each term through the entire volume, and
applying Gauss's theorem to the first integral, we get Since the boundary is insulated,F ·
d = 0 . Thus

 



 

because the volume integral may be transformed to a surface
integral by integrating with respect to x

 

because the surface integral may be written in a more convenient
form by using a vectorial surface element dx whose absolute value is
dS = dy dz, and which is directed outward and normal to
the surface defined by dy dz.
Summing Equation 11.61 and similar expressions for py
and pz and replacing the potential F with voltage V, we finally obtain the vector
equation





(11.62)
which expresses the resultant dipole moment of a volume source
in an arbitrary volume conductor.
We now explain in detail the meaning of Equation 11.62, as illustrated
in Figure 11.29. Figure 11.29A illustrates the homogeneous volume conductor including
the volume source. In the illustration the Gabor-Nelson theorem is discussed in
two dimensions. The equivalent dipole moment of the volume source is . The vectorial surface element d is a vector attached to the surface element. It is directed outward
and normal to the surface element, and its absolute value equals the area of the
surface element. For clarity the volume conductor is divided into 12 surface
elements, S1 through S12. (When applying
Equation 11.62, of course, one assumes that the number of surface elements is
infinite.) A vector d1 through d12 is attached to each surface element. The volume source
produces a potential, F1 through F12, at each surface element. It is obvious that because the surface is closed, the sum of the
vectorial surface elements is equal to zero; that is, Sdi = 0 (Figure 11.29B). If we multiply each vectorial surface element di by the corresponding potential Fi (or actually with the voltage
Vi measured at each surface element in relation to an
indifferent reference), the sum of these products, SVidi, is no longer zero. It is clear that when one is
considering the surface potential due to the dipole along the surface elements of increasing index, one
finds that it is at its maximum at the surface elements S1 and
S2. Then it decreases and reaches the value zero somewhere
between the surface elements S4 and S5.
Thereafter the surface potential turns to negative polarity and reaches its
maximum at the surface element S7. Thereafter the (negative)
surface potential decreases to zero and increases again to the positive maximum
in the area of S1. Therefore, the sum SVidi is not zero; and according to the Equation 11.62, if the
number of the surface elements is infinite, one obtains . For clarity, the length of is shown longer in Figure 11.29C than in Figure
11.29A..


Fig. 11.29. Illustration of the Gabor-Nelson equation
for evaluating the resultant (equivalent) dipole of a volume distribution
lying in a bounded homogeneous volume conductor. The integral is shown
approximated by discretizing the surface into 12 elements. The calculation of
the integral is explained in detail in the text.
11.7.2 The Location of the Equivalent Dipole
Next we describe the procedure for finding the position of the
resultant dipole. If we actually had an equal point source and sink, +I
and -I, located at points





the second moment of the source distribution is in the x
direction and given by





(11.63)
where upper-case X denotes the x-coordinate of
the dipole location and lower-case x is the variable in this coordinate.
In the limit Dx 0 and IDx px we obtain





(11.64)
We now transform this second moment integral, following the same steps
as with the first moment, namely




Xpx

(11.65)

 


 


 

Integrating by parts with respect to x and again
replacing the potential F with
the measured voltage V gives





(11.66)
In a similar way, we obtain equations for Ypy and
Zpz. It is obvious that we cannot determine any of these by
surface measurements alone because the second term in each expression requires a
volume integral of the potential V. However, in the same way as one
obtains Equation 11.66, one can show that





(11.67)
Two similar equations arise by cyclic permutation of the
coordinates. We can also derive three new equations of the type





(11.68)
in the same manner as Equations 11.61 and 11.66 were derived.
We can now eliminate the unknown volume integral of V from the equations
of the type 11.66, and, together with the three equations of the type 11.68, we
are left with the five equations for the three quantities X, Y,
and Z. Any three of these five equations can be used for finding the
location of the dipole, and the other two for checking how well the assumption
of one dipole accounts for the observation. One can also use the method of least
squares to obtain the best fit.
11.8 SUMMARY OF THE THEORETICAL METHODS FOR
ANALYZING VOLUME SOURCES AND VOLUME CONDUCTORS
We have discussed six different theoretical methods for
analyzing volume sources and volume conductors. Two of them are used for solving
the forward problem, and the other four for solving the inverse problem. These
methods are:
1.       For the forward
problem:Solid angle theoremMiller-Geselowitz
model2.       For the inverse
problem:Lead vectorImage surfaceLead fieldGabor-Nelson theorem
In various cases we had the following sources:
Double layer Distributed dipole Dipole (in a fixed location) Moving dipole Dipole moment of a volume source Multiple dipole Multipole
These sources have been located in volume conductors that were:

Infinite, homogeneous (Infinite, inhomogeneous, not discussed) Finite, homogeneous Finite, inhomogeneous
The application of each method is limited to certain source-conductor
combinations, as expressed in the sets of preconditions in connection with the
discussion of each method. We summarize these preconditions in Figure 11.30. The
former one of these shows the application areas for the two methods used in
solving the forward problem, and the latter one for those used in solving the
inverse problem. Figure 11.30A is quite obvious. The preconditions of the two methods
are shown by locating the methods in the corresponding location in the
source-conductor plane. The application area of the solid angle theorem is shown
to be both the infinite homogeneous volume conductor, as derived first by
Helmholtz, and the finite homogeneous and inhomogeneous conductors, where it can
be extended with the concept of secondary sources. Figure 11.30B needs some clarification, and certainly some details of
this figure could perhaps be presented also in some other way. The source for the lead vector and image surface methods is dipole. In
Sections 11.4 and 11.5, these methods were discussed, for simplicity, in
connection with finite conductors. There is, however, no theoretical reason,
that would restrict their application only to finite conductors, but they are
applicable to infinite conductors as well. Therefore, their application area is
shown for both finite and infinite conductors, but more light shaded in infinite
conductors. The same holds also for the lead field theory. Section 11.6.4 did not
discuss the application of the lead field theory for a multiple dipole or
multipole source. The lead field theory may, however, be applied also in
connection with these sources. Therefore, they are included into the application
area but with lighter shading. The application area of the Gabor-Nelson theorem is clear. It can be
applied for solving the dipole moment of a single dipole or a volume source in a
finite homogeneous volume conductor. It also gives the location of this dipole
moment..



Fig. 11.30. (A) The source-conductor combinations
where the solid angle theorem and Miller-Geselowitz model may be applied in
solving the forward problem. (B) The source-conductor combinations where the
lead vector, image surface, and lead field methods as well as Gabor-Nelson
theorem may be applied in solving the inverse problem.
REFERENCES
Brody DA (1957): A method for applying approximately ideal lead
connections to homogeneous volume conductors of irregular shape. Am. Heart
J. 53:(2) 174-82.
Burger HC (1967): Heart and Vector, (Series ed, HW
Julius Jr.: Philips Technical Library.) 143 pp. Gordon & Breach Science
Publishers, New York.
Burger HC, van Milaan JB (1946): Heart vector and leads - I.
Br. Heart J. 8:(3) 157-61.
Burger HC, van Milaan JB (1947): Heart vector and leads - II.
Br. Heart J. 9: 154-60.
Burger HC, van Milaan JB (1948): Heart vector and leads - III.
Br. Heart J. 10: 233.
Einthoven W (1908): Weiteres über das Elektrokardiogram.
Pflüger Arch. ges. Physiol. 122: 517-48.
Frank E (1954): The image surface of a homogeneous torso.
Am. Heart J. 47: 757-68.
Gabor D, Nelson CV (1954): Determination of the resultant
dipole of the heart from measurements on the body surface. J. Appl. Phys.
25:(4) 413-6.
Gulrajani RM, Mailloux GE (1983): A simulation study of the
effects of torso inhomogeneities on electrocardiographic potentials using
realistic heart and torso models. Circ. Res. 52: 45-56.
Helmholtz HLF (1853): Ueber einige Gesetze der Vertheilung
elektrischer Ströme in körperlichen Leitern mit Anwendung auf die
thierisch-elektrischen Versuche. Ann. Physik und Chemie 89: 211-33,
354-77.
Horácek BM (1971): The effect on electrocardiographic lead
vectors of conductivity inhomogeneities in the human torso. Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, pp. 182. (Ph.D. thesis)
Hyttinen JA, Eskola HJ, Sievänen H, Malmivuo JA (1988): Atlas
of the sensitivity distribution of the common ECG-lead systems. Tampere Univ.
Techn., Inst. Biomed. Eng., Reports 2:(2) 25+67.
Malmivuo JA (1976): On the detection of the magnetic heart
vector - An application of the reciprocity theorem. Helsinki Univ. Tech.,
Acta Polytechn. Scand., El. Eng. Series. Vol. 39., pp. 112. (Dr. tech.
thesis)
McFee R, Johnston FD (1953): Electrocardiographic leads I.
Introduction. Circulation 8:(10) 554-68.
McFee R, Johnston FD (1954a): Electrocardiographic leads II.
Analysis. Circulation 9:(2) 255-66.
McFee R, Johnston FD (1954b): Electrocardiographic leads III.
Synthesis. Circulation 9:(6) 868-80.
Miller WT, Geselowitz DB (1978): Simulation studies of the
electrocardiogram, I. The normal heart. Circ. Res. 43:(2) 301-15.
Plonsey R (1963): Reciprocity applied to volume conductors and
the EEG. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Electron. BME-10:(1) 9-12.
Plonsey R (1971): The biophysical basis for electrocardiology.
CRC Crit. Rev. Bioeng. 1: 1-48.
Stratton JA (1941): Electromagnetic Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Waller AD (1889): On the electromotive changes connected with
the beat of the mammalian heart, and on the human heart in particular. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. (Lond.) 180: 169-94.
Wikswo JP, Malmivuo JA, Barry WM, Leifer M, Fairbank WM (1979):
The theory and application of magnetocardiography. In Advances in
Cardiovascular Physics, Vol. 2, ed. DN Ghista, pp. 1-67, S. Karger, Basel.
Wilson FN, Macleod AG, Barker PS (1931): Potential variations
produced by the heart beat at the apices of Einthoven's triangle. Am. Heart
J. 7: 207-11.






Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
7 Volume Source and Volume Conductor
Behavior Mapping A Method for Linking Preschool Physical Activity and Outdoor Design
SHSpec 034 6108C04 Methodology of Auditing Not doingness and Occlusion
FOREX Systems Research Practical Fibonacci Methods For Forex Trading 2005
drugs for youth via internet and the example of mephedrone tox lett 2011 j toxlet 2010 12 014
Emma Petersen [Twelfth Night 11] All I Want for Christmas (pdf)
2002 07 Networking Dns Configuration for Both the Client and Server
Calendar of Backyard Gardening Operations for Selected Temperate Fruit and Nut Trees
2001 11 Setting Preferences for Windows 98 Users
Herbs for Sports Performance, Energy and Recovery Guide to Optimal Sports Nutrition
Ionic liquids as solvents for polymerization processes Progress and challenges Progress in Polym
Advanced Methods for Development of Wind turbine models for control designe

więcej podobnych podstron