# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
On finding the surface admittance of an obstacle via the time domain enclosure method
• IPI Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
An augmented lagrangian method for solving a new variational model based on gradients similarity measures and high order regulariation for multimodality registration
April  2019, 13(2): 285-307. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019015

## Incorporating structural prior information and sparsity into EIT using parallel level sets

 1 Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, POB 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland 2 Institute for Mathematical Innovation, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK 3 Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

* Corresponding author: Ville Kolehmainen

Received  September 2017 Revised  June 2018 Published  January 2019

EIT is a non-linear ill-posed inverse problem which requires sophisticated regularisation techniques to achieve good results. In this paper we consider the use of structural information in the form of edge directions coming from an auxiliary image of the same object being reconstructed. In order to allow for cases where the auxiliary image does not provide complete information we consider in addition a sparsity regularization for the edges appearing in the EIT image. The combination of these approaches is conveniently described through the parallel level sets approach. We present an overview of previous methods for structural regularisation and then provide a variational setting for our approach and explain the numerical implementation. We present results on simulations and experimental data for different cases with accurate and inaccurate prior information. The results demonstrate that the structural prior information improves the reconstruction accuracy, even in cases when there is reasonable uncertainty in the prior about the location of the edges or only partial edge information is available.

Citation: Ville Kolehmainen, Matthias J. Ehrhardt, Simon R. Arridge. Incorporating structural prior information and sparsity into EIT using parallel level sets. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2019, 13 (2) : 285-307. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019015
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Numerical experiment (Case 1). Rows top to bottom: $\sigma_{{\rm true}}$ and reference images $p(r)$ (top row), weighting function $\gamma(r)$ (second row), reconstructions using ${\rm SH}_1$ regularisation (third row) and STV regularisation (fourth row)
Plot of standard deviation with respect to bias of the reconstructed conductivity with different values of the regularisation parameter $\alpha$ for the simulation in figure 1. The left image shows the curves for the mean conductivity in the area of the true inclusion on the top in ${\sigma}_{\rm true}$, and the image on the right for the inclusion on the bottom right. The triangle denotes the point corresponding to the smallest value of $\alpha$ in the curves
Numerical experiment (Case 2). Rows top to bottom: $\sigma_{{\rm true}}$ and reference images $p(r)$ (top row), weighting function $\gamma(r)$ (second row), reconstructions using ${\rm SH}_1$ regularisation (third row) and STV regularisation (fourth row)
Numerical experiment (Case 3). Rows top to bottom: $\sigma_{{\rm true}}$ and reference images $p(r)$ (top row), weighting function $\gamma(r)$ (second row), reconstructions using ${\rm SH}_1$ regularisation (third row) and STV regularisation (fourth row)
Numerical experiment (Case 3): Reconstructions with increasing uncertainty about the edge location in the partial edge information. Rows top to bottom: $\sigma_{{\rm true}}$ and reference images $p(r)$ (top row), weighting function $\gamma(r)$ (second row), reconstructions using ${\rm SH}_1$ regularisation (third row) and STV regularisation (fourth row)
Numerical experiment (Case 4). Rows top to bottom: $\sigma_{{\rm true}}$ and reference images $p(r)$ (top row), weighting function $\gamma(r)$ (second row), reconstructions using ${\rm SH}_1$ regularisation (third row) and STV regularisation (fourth row)
Physical experiment. Top section: Photograph of the target and the reference images $p(r)$. The second row shows the weighting functions $\gamma(r)$. Bottom section: Reconstructions. ${\rm SH}_1$ regularisation (third row), STV regularisation (fourth row). (Color scales of the reconstructions are arbitrary in the sense that they are reconstructed 2D values from 3D data)
Examples of $\psi$ for different regularisation schemes in variational form. $\psi$ is the mapping which defines the penalty for the gradient magnitude in (4) and $\kappa$ is the corresponding local diffusivity function in (6).
 $\psi(t)$ $\kappa(t)$ $1^{\rm st}$-order Tikhonov $\frac{ t ^2}2$ $1$ TV $t$ $\frac{1}{ t }$ Smoothed TV $T\left( t ^2 + T^2\right)^{1/2} -T^2$ $T \left( t ^2 + T^2\right)^{-1/2}$ Perona-Malik (1) $\frac{T^2}2 \log\left(1 + \frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)$ $T^2 \left( t ^2 + T^2\right)^{-1}$ Perona-Malik (2) $\frac{T^2}2 \left[1 - \exp\left(-\frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)\right]$ $\exp\left(- \frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)$ Huber $\left\{ \begin{array}{l} Tt - \frac{{{T^2}}}{2}\\ \frac{{{t^2}}}{2} \end{array} \right.$ $\frac{T}{ t }$ 1 if $t > T$ else Tukey $\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \frac{{{T^2}}}{6}\\ \frac{{{T^2}}}{6}\left[ {1 - {{\left( {1 - \frac{{{t^2}}}{{{T^2}}}} \right)}^3}} \right] \end{array} \right.$ $0$ $\left(1 - \frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)^2$ if $t> T$ else
 $\psi(t)$ $\kappa(t)$ $1^{\rm st}$-order Tikhonov $\frac{ t ^2}2$ $1$ TV $t$ $\frac{1}{ t }$ Smoothed TV $T\left( t ^2 + T^2\right)^{1/2} -T^2$ $T \left( t ^2 + T^2\right)^{-1/2}$ Perona-Malik (1) $\frac{T^2}2 \log\left(1 + \frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)$ $T^2 \left( t ^2 + T^2\right)^{-1}$ Perona-Malik (2) $\frac{T^2}2 \left[1 - \exp\left(-\frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)\right]$ $\exp\left(- \frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)$ Huber $\left\{ \begin{array}{l} Tt - \frac{{{T^2}}}{2}\\ \frac{{{t^2}}}{2} \end{array} \right.$ $\frac{T}{ t }$ 1 if $t > T$ else Tukey $\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \frac{{{T^2}}}{6}\\ \frac{{{T^2}}}{6}\left[ {1 - {{\left( {1 - \frac{{{t^2}}}{{{T^2}}}} \right)}^3}} \right] \end{array} \right.$ $0$ $\left(1 - \frac{ t ^2}{T^2}\right)^2$ if $t> T$ else
Reconstruction errors (28) for the simulated test cases for varying regularizations (${\rm SH}_1$, STV) and reference images (no structure, correct, partial). Cases 1-4 refer to reconstructions in the figures 1, 3, 4 and 6 respectively. Errors are given in percentages
 SH1 STV case no structure correct partial no structure correct partial 1 12.3 3.6 8.6 8.8 3.5 4.9 2 15.6 5.6 10.9 13.8 3.3 10.1 3 10.6 3.5 6.5 8.0 2.4 4.9 4 15.3 11.5 12.9 14.3 11.1 12.7
 SH1 STV case no structure correct partial no structure correct partial 1 12.3 3.6 8.6 8.8 3.5 4.9 2 15.6 5.6 10.9 13.8 3.3 10.1 3 10.6 3.5 6.5 8.0 2.4 4.9 4 15.3 11.5 12.9 14.3 11.1 12.7
 [1] Henrik Garde, Kim Knudsen. 3D reconstruction for partial data electrical impedance tomography using a sparsity prior. Conference Publications, 2015, 2015 (special) : 495-504. doi: 10.3934/proc.2015.0495 [2] Bastian Gebauer. Localized potentials in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2008, 2 (2) : 251-269. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2008.2.251 [3] Fabrice Delbary, Rainer Kress. Electrical impedance tomography using a point electrode inverse scheme for complete electrode data. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (2) : 355-369. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.355 [4] Hiroshi Isozaki. Inverse boundary value problems in the horosphere - A link between hyperbolic geometry and electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (1) : 107-134. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.107 [5] Kari Astala, Jennifer L. Mueller, Lassi Päivärinta, Allan Perämäki, Samuli Siltanen. Direct electrical impedance tomography for nonsmooth conductivities. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (3) : 531-549. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.531 [6] Ville Kolehmainen, Matti Lassas, Petri Ola, Samuli Siltanen. Recovering boundary shape and conductivity in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (1) : 217-242. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.217 [7] Nuutti Hyvönen, Harri Hakula, Sampsa Pursiainen. Numerical implementation of the factorization method within the complete electrode model of electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (2) : 299-317. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.299 [8] Helmut Harbrecht, Thorsten Hohage. A Newton method for reconstructing non star-shaped domains in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2009, 3 (2) : 353-371. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2009.3.353 [9] Sarah Jane Hamilton, Andreas Hauptmann, Samuli Siltanen. A data-driven edge-preserving D-bar method for electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2014, 8 (4) : 1053-1072. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.1053 [10] Melody Alsaker, Sarah Jane Hamilton, Andreas Hauptmann. A direct D-bar method for partial boundary data electrical impedance tomography with a priori information. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2017, 11 (3) : 427-454. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2017020 [11] Mohsen Tadi. A computational method for an inverse problem in a parabolic system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2009, 12 (1) : 205-218. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2009.12.205 [12] Liliana Borcea, Fernando Guevara Vasquez, Alexander V. Mamonov. Study of noise effects in electrical impedance tomography with resistor networks. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (2) : 417-443. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.417 [13] Dong liu, Ville Kolehmainen, Samuli Siltanen, Anne-maria Laukkanen, Aku Seppänen. Estimation of conductivity changes in a region of interest with electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (1) : 211-229. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.211 [14] Gen Nakamura, Päivi Ronkanen, Samuli Siltanen, Kazumi Tanuma. Recovering conductivity at the boundary in three-dimensional electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (2) : 485-510. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.485 [15] Nicolay M. Tanushev, Luminita Vese. A piecewise-constant binary model for electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2007, 1 (2) : 423-435. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.423 [16] Nuutti Hyvönen, Lassi Päivärinta, Janne P. Tamminen. Enhancing D-bar reconstructions for electrical impedance tomography with conformal maps. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2018, 12 (2) : 373-400. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2018017 [17] Kimmo Karhunen, Aku Seppänen, Jari P. Kaipio. Adaptive meshing approach to identification of cracks with electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2014, 8 (1) : 127-148. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.127 [18] Jérémi Dardé, Harri Hakula, Nuutti Hyvönen, Stratos Staboulis. Fine-tuning electrode information in electrical impedance tomography. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2012, 6 (3) : 399-421. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2012.6.399 [19] Melody Dodd, Jennifer L. Mueller. A real-time D-bar algorithm for 2-D electrical impedance tomography data. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2014, 8 (4) : 1013-1031. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.1013 [20] Daniela Calvetti, Paul J. Hadwin, Janne M. J. Huttunen, Jari P. Kaipio, Erkki Somersalo. Artificial boundary conditions and domain truncation in electrical impedance tomography. Part II: Stochastic extension of the boundary map. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (3) : 767-789. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.767

2018 Impact Factor: 1.469