• James E. RosenthalEmail author


Electrical activity in the heart arises from the movement of positively and negatively charged ions across the cell membrane of cardiac cells. The movement of these ions occurs in an organized and repetitive fashion that generates a sequences of voltage changes called the action potential. The action potential activates the heart and initiates contraction. It also generates potential differences between different parts of the heart that can be recorded from the surface of the heart. It can also be recorded by electrodes attached to the surface of the skin, generating the electrocardiogram (ECG). Recording the ECG from multiple standardized positions allows clinically useful conclusions to be made regarding the sequence of activation of the heart and about the presence of pathology. Analog recording of ECGs has largely been supplanted by digital recording. The ECG signal is processed by high pass and low pass filters to allow maximal fidelity while minimizing electrical noise. A technique called common mode rejection rejects signals that appear at the same amplitude at each electrode since such signals most likely represent artifact. Analog to digital conversion typically occurs at a high sampling rate of 500 Hz. Some devices use variable sampling rates, reducing it for portions lower frequency portions of the signal. This preserves the fidelity of the ECG while creating smaller files. Many ECG recorders provide automated analysis of the waveform. To do this, they form a template of the ECG waveform using techniques such as signal averaging to create an average or median waveform, selecting fiduciary points to align the elements of the ECG waveform, and using features such as changes in amplitude and slope to identify key elements of the waveform. Complex decision trees are used by programs to make diagnostic statements regarding the waveform. While reliable, computerized ECG analysis programs have been outperformed by expert human readers. Since the greatest accuracy may be achieved by combining computerized interpretation with over-reading by humans, current standards call for physician review of all ECGs.


Sinus Node Compression Algorithm Extracellular Compartment Left Ventricular Enlargement Computerize Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bayes de Luna AJ. Textbook of Clinical Electrocardiography. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff; 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holland RP, Arnsdorf MF. Solid angle theory and the electrocardiogram: physiologic and quantitative interpretations. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1977;19(6):431–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng LK, Bodley JM, Pullan AJ. Effects of experimental and modeling errors on electrocardiographic inverse formulations. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003;50(1):23–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson FN, Johnston FD, Macleod AG, Barker PS. Electrocardiograms that represent the potential variations of a single electrode. Am Heart J. 1934;9(4):447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldberger E. A simple, indifferent, electrocardiographic electrode of zero potential and a technique of obtaining augmented, unipolar, extremity leads. Am Heart J. 1942;23(4):483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailey JJ, Berson AS, Garson A Jr, et al. Recommendations for standardization and specifications in automated electrocardiography: bandwidth and digital signal processing. A report for health professionals by an ad hoc writing group of the Committee on Electrocardiography and Cardiac Electrophysiology of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1990;81(2):730–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tayler DI, Vincent R. Artefactual ST segment abnormalities due to electrocardiograph design. Br Heart J. 1985;54:121–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berson AS, Pipberger HV. The low-frequency response of electrocardiographs, a frequent source of recording errors. Am Heart J. 1966;71(6):779–789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kossmann CE, Brody DA, Burch GE, et al. Recommendations for Standardization of Leads and of Specifications for Instruments in Electrocardiography and Vectorcardiography. Circulation. 1967;35(3):583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahlstrom ML, Tompkins WJ. Digital filters for real-time ECG signal processing using microprocessors. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1985;32(9):708–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golden DP, Wolthuis RA, Hoffler GW. A spectral analysis of the normal resting electrocardiogram. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1973;20(5):366–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    GE Healthcare (2003–2006). Marquette™ 12SL™ ECG Analysis Program: Physician’s Guide; Revision D (2003–2006). General Electric Company.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barr RC, Spach MS. Sampling rates required for digital recording of intracellular and extracellular cardiac potentials. Circulation. 1977;55(1):40–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kligfield P, Gettes LS, Bailey JJ, et al. Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: Part I: The Electrocardiogram and Its Technology: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. Circulation. 2007;115(10):1306–1324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zywietz C, Willems JL, Arnaud P, et al.; The CSE Working Party. Stability of computer ECG amplitude measurements in the presence of noise. Comput Biomed Res. 1990;23(1):10–31.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farrell RM, Rowlandson GI. The effects of noise on computerized electrocardiogram measurements. J Electrocardiol. 2006;39(4 suppl):S165–S173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Willems JL, Zywietz C, Arnaud P, et al. Influence of noise on wave boundary recognition by ECG measurement programs. Recommendations for preprocessing. Comput Biomed Res. 1987;20(6):543–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mason JW, Hancock EW, Gettes LS, et al. Recommendations for the Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram: Part II: Electrocardiography Diagnostic Statement List: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society: Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. Circulation. 2007;115(10):1325–1332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Surawicz B, Uhley H, Borun R, et al. Task force I: standardization of terminology and interpretation. Am J Cardiol. 1978;41:130–145Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Willems JL, Arnaud P, van Bemmel JH, et al. A reference data base for multilead electrocardiographic computer measurement programs. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10(6):1313–1321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Willems JL, Arnaud P, van Bemmel JH, et al. Assessment of the performance of electrocardiographic computer programs with the use of a reference data base. Circulation. 1985;71(3):523–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willems JL, Abreu-Lima C, Arnaud P, et al. The diagnostic performance of computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(25):1767–1773.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brailer DJ, Kroch E, Pauly MV. The impact of computer-assisted test interpretation on physician decision making: the case of electrocardiograms. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):80–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Willems JL, Abreu-Lima C, Arnaud P, et al. Effect of combining electrocardiographic interpretation results on diagnostic accuracy. Eur Heart J. 1988;9(12):1348–1355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsai TL, Fridsma DB, Gatti G. Computer decision support as a source of interpretation error: the case of electrocardiograms. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(5):478–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jalaleddine SM, Hutchens CG, Strattan RD, Coberly WA. ECG data compression techniques – a unified approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1990;37(4):329–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reddy BR, Christenson DW, Rowlandson GI, Zywietz C, Sheffield T, Brohet C. Data compression for storage of resting ECGs digitized at 500 samples/second. Biomed Instrum Technol. 1992;26(2):133–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fozzard HA, DasGupta DS. ST-segment potentials and mapping. Theory and experiments. Circulation. 1976;54:533–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boron WF, Boulpaep EL. Textbook of Medical Physiology. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company; 2002.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thaler MS. The Only EKG Book You’ll Ever Need. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations