of 2.04 cm. Reconstructions from the ACE1 data are presented in Section \[sec:results\_ACE1\].

Figure \[fig:ACT4\_circ\_elecsNoisy\] demonstrates the various boundary information scenarios that were tested for the ACT3 and ACT4 data. The incorrect electrode locations are shown in the leftmost image in red with the markers representing the electrode centers, the ovular boundary is shown in the middle image, and another incorrect boundary is shown in the rightmost image. For the ACE1 data, which has a chest-shaped boundary, we examine the alternative boundaries and electrode positions shown in Figure \[fig:CSU\_elecSetups\] with incorrect electrode locations and boundaries again shown in red.

[[‘True’ boundary functions were formed as Fourier series approximations using coordinate data from imported photographs of the experiments. The ‘alternative’ boundary shown in Figure \[fig:ACT4\_circ\_elecsNoisy\] (right) was formed using imprecise clicks on the imported experiment photo (Fig. \[fig:phantoms\], left). The ovular boundaries were defined in terms of their major and minor principal semi-axes. ‘Correct Angle’ electrode locations were simulated by defining their centers $d\theta=\frac{2\pi}{L}$ apart.]{}]{}

(380,140) (0,0)[![Boundary shapes and electrode locations tested for the ACT3/ACT4 data. Left: True boundary shape with incorrect electrode locations in red. Middle: Oval (incorrect) boundary shape. Right: An incorrect boundary created from a picture of the 