The paper presents the views of the 2-D interpretation of of magnetotelluric (MT) data that are characteristic of the Russian magnetotelluric school. Discussing the strategy of 2-D interpretation of MT data, we have to answer three questions. In decreasing order of importance, these questions are as foloows. (1) Which field mode is more sensitive to the near-surface and deep structures that are the targets of MT surveys? (2) Which field mode is more robust to the 3-D effects caused by real geological bodies? (3) Which field mode is more susceptible to the static shift induced by near-surface inhomogeneities?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berdichevsky et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: