These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Error analysis of tissue resistivity measurement.
    Author: Tsai JZ, Will JA, Hubbard-Van Stelle S, Cao H, Tungjitkusolmun S, Choy YB, Haemmerich D, Vorperian VR, Webster JG.
    Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2002 May; 49(5):484-94. PubMed ID: 12002180.
    Abstract:
    We identified the error sources in a system for measuring tissue resistivity at eight frequencies from 1 Hz to 1 MHz using the four-terminal method. We expressed the measured resistivity with an analytical formula containing all error terms. We conducted practical error measurements with in-vivo and bench-top experiments. We averaged errors at all frequencies for all measurements. The standard deviations of error of the quantization error of the 8-bit digital oscilloscope with voltage averaging, the nonideality of the circuit, the in-vivo motion artifact and electrical interference combined to yield an error of +/- 1.19%. The dimension error in measuring the syringe tube for measuring the reference saline resistivity added +/- 1.32% error. The estimation of the working probe constant by interpolating a set of probe constants measured in reference saline solutions added +/- 0.48% error. The difference in the current magnitudes used during the probe calibration and that during the tissue resistivity measurement caused +/- 0.14% error. Variation of the electrode spacing, alignment, and electrode surface property due to the insertion of electrodes into the tissue caused +/- 0.61% error. We combined the above errors to yield an overall standard deviation error of the measured tissue resistivity of +/- 1.96%.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]