journal article·2024-01-01Open access

A hybrid of iterative Gauss–Newton and one-dimensional convolutional neural network for high-resolution electrical impedance tomography

Keiya Minakawa, Keigo Ohta, Hiroaki Komatsu, Tomoko Fukuyama, Takashi Ikuno

AIP Advances· Volume 14· Issue 1

Abstract

We developed a processing method using benefits of both iterative Gauss–Newton (IGN) and a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) for high-resolution electrical impedance tomography. The proposed method logically combines conductivity images reconstructed by different methods. The accuracies of the mathematical IGN method, 1D-CNN method, and the proposed method were compared. Utilizing the ideal potential data obtained through simulations, along with the experimental potential data derived from cement samples, we reconstruct the conductivity distribution. When utilizing the simulation data, the IGN method produces larger errors in the reconstructed images as the size of the foreign object decreases. The proposed method reconstructs the position and size more accurately than the IGN and 1D-CNN methods. When utilizing the experimental data, 1D-CNN and proposed methods were more accurate in terms of the position and size than the IGN method.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Electrical and Bioimpedance Tomography · Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods · Flow Measurement and Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Applied Electronics, Graduate School of Advanced Engineering, Tokyo University of Science 1 , Katsushika, Tokyo 125-8585, Japan

College of Science and Engineering, Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Ritsumeikan University 2 , Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan

Funding

Asahi Glass Foundation

References (24)

Show source-provided references
1. Constr. Build. Mater. · 2020 · 244 · 11829910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118299 ↗
2. Sensors · 2020 · 20 · 82610.3390/s20030826 ↗
3. Cem. Concr. Res. · 2010 · 40 · 13710.1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.023 ↗
4. Cem. Concr. Res. · 2015 · 69 · 1010.1016/j.cemconres.2014.11.007 ↗
5. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer · 2016 · 103 · 134810.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.08.039 ↗
6. Transp. Porous Media · 2016 · 115 · 10110.1007/s11242-016-0756-1 ↗
7. Cem. Concr. Res. · 2017 · 91 · 6110.1016/j.cemconres.2016.10.009 ↗
8. Cem. Concr. Compos. · 2021 · 122 · 10415410.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104154 ↗
9. Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. · 2022 · 478 · 2021071310.1098/rspa.2021.0713 ↗
10. Algorithms · 2019 · 12 · 8810.3390/a12050088 ↗
11. Electronics · 2018 · 7 · 42210.3390/electronics7120422 ↗
12. IFAC-PapersOnLine · 2020 · 53 · 1594610.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.360 ↗
13. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. · 2019 · 66 · 254610.1109/TBME.2019.2891676 ↗
14. IEEE Sens. J. · 2019 · 19 · 19610.1109/JSEN.2018.2876411 ↗
15. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. · 2020 · 69 · 488710.1109/TIM.2019.2954722 ↗
16. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. · 2022 · 71 · 110.1109/TIM.2021.3135327 ↗
17. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. · 2017 · 34 · 8510.1109/MSP.2017.2739299 ↗
18. Sensors · 2018 · 18 · 228510.3390/s18072285 ↗
19. Autom. Constr. · 2022 · 135 · 10411610.1016/j.autcon.2021.104116 ↗
20. Sci. Rep. · 2017 · 7 · 721210.1038/s41598-017-07727-2 ↗
21. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging · 2018 · 37 · 236710.1109/TMI.2018.2828303 ↗
22. Neural Comput. Appl. · 2023 · 35 · 546510.1007/s00521-022-07988-7 ↗
23. Physiol. Meas. · 2006 · 27 · S2510.1088/0967-3334/27/5/S03 ↗
24. Rev. Sci. Instrum. · 2020 · 91 · 12470410.1063/5.0025881 ↗