Erratum to: Stiffness Analysis of Cardiac Electrophysiological Models

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

wins once. This represents an increase of 7 wins for the RL method (and a corresponding decrease of 3 wins for the FE method and 4 wins for the GRL2 method, respectively) from the original report. At 1% RRMS error, the RL method wins 31 times, GRL2 wins 5 times, and FE wins once. This is an increase of 15 wins for the RL method (and a corresponding decrease of 6 wins for the FE method and 9 wins for the GRL2 method, respectively). The conclusion remains that GRL2 is most effective in only the stiffest situations, i.e., when the eigenvalues of the Jacobian and the accuracy required combine to restrict the time step size on the basis of stability. Otherwise, the RL method is the method of choice because it exhibits the best combination of stability and computational expense per step for moderately stiff situations, into which most cell models fall for typical accuracy requirements. The FE method is the most inexpensive per step; however its stability properties are so poor that it is only effective in the least stiff (and usually least realistic) situations, in this case, only the FitzHugh–Nagumo model.