Core i7 processors [[and]{}]{} a [Matlab]{} implementation that has not been optimized for speed.

Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================

Reconstructions from ACT3 Data {#sec:results_ACT3}
------------------------------

Absolute and time-difference conductivity reconstructions using the three methods are presented in Figures \[fig:ACT3\_HnL\_Nach\], \[fig:ACT3\_HnL\_FranSarah\], and \[fig:ACT3\_HnL\_FranNata\]. [[Note that only Figure \[fig:ACT3\_HnL\_FranNata\] tackles the noisy electrodes with correct boundary shape case.]{}]{} This is due to the fact the electrode center locations are so poorly guessed that the resulting electrode edges overlap [[making simulation of $\mathbf{L}_1$, required for the $\operatorname{\mathbf{t}^{\mbox{\tiny{\textbf{exp}}}}}$ and [*‘Approach 1’*]{} methods, impractical. For the remaining cases, the DN data $\mathbf{L}_1$ was formed using the simulated current and voltage data from solving with $\sigma=1$, subject to boundary conditions defined by the Complete Electrode Model \[[@Somersalo1992]\], with constant non-optimized effective contact impedances of [[0.00000024 $\Omega$m]{}]{}, using the Finite Element Method for 1) the true boundary and electrode angles (4,227 elements), 2) ovular boundary and correct electrode angles (4,339 elements), and 3) alternative boundary shape and true electrode angles (4,122 elements), with with $A=1$ milliamp amplitude trigonometric current patterns . While difference images with correct boundary shape and incorrect electrode locations were computed for $\operatorname{\mathbf{t}^{\mbox{\tiny{\textbf{diff}}}}}$ and $\operatorname{S^{\mbox{$\Psi$\tiny{\textbf{diff}}}}}$, as no $\mathbf{L}_1$ is needed, the images were very 