Comment on ‘Comparative analysis of the isovolume calibration method for non-invasive respiratory monitoring techniques based on area transduction versus circumference transduction using the connected cylinders model’ (2011 Physiol. Meas. 32 1265–74)
School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK.Physiological Measurement (Impact Factor: 1.81). 08/2011; 32(8):1265-74. DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/32/8/016
An analytical formalism developed previously to examine the robustness of the isovolume calibration technique for non-invasive respiratory monitoring devices based on measurements of torso circumference (e.g. fibre-optic respiratory plethysmography) is extended here to techniques based on area measurement (e.g. respiratory inductive plethysmography), and the results are compared. The earlier perturbation approach is adopted, and an exact method is also presented. It is demonstrated that the area-based techniques have less dependence on the cylindrical compartmental parameters of radius and height, and are independent of compartmental volume if height variations are negligible, in contrast to circumference-based techniques. It is also demonstrated that both the area- and the circumference-based techniques provide similar inferences of volume when calibrated using the isovolume method under reasonable assumptions for the dimensions of the compartments that constitute a model of the torso.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.