In simulated cardiac tissue, the 'single vector' method for estimating conduction velocity is more accurate but requires manual input, while the 'average vector' method can be automated.
Accuracy trade-offs in simulated conduction velocity methods caution against sole automation; leaves open hybrid validation for experimental translation.
To estimate conduction velocities from activation times in myocardial tissue, the "average vector" method computes all the local activation directions and velocities from local activation times and estimates the fastest and slowest propagation speed from these local values. The "single vector" method uses areas of apparent uniform elliptical spread of activation and chooses a single vector for the estimated longitudinal velocity and one for the transversal. A simulation study was performed to estimate the influence of grid size, anisotropy, and vector angle bin size. The results indicate that the "average vector" method can best be used if the grid- or bin-size is large, although systematic errors occur. The "single vector" method performs better, but requires human intervention for the definition of fiber direction. The average vector method can be automated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linnenbank et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: