These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

466 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10097460)

  • 1. EEG and MEG: forward solutions for inverse methods.
    Mosher JC; Leahy RM; Lewis PS
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1999 Mar; 46(3):245-59. PubMed ID: 10097460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Linear inverse source estimate of combined EEG and MEG data related to voluntary movements.
    Babiloni F; Carducci F; Cincotti F; Del Gratta C; Pizzella V; Romani GL; Rossini PM; Tecchio F; Babiloni C
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2001 Dec; 14(4):197-209. PubMed ID: 11668651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Array response kernels for EEG and MEG in multilayer ellipsoidal geometry.
    Gutiérrez D; Nehorai A
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2008 Mar; 55(3):1103-11. PubMed ID: 18334402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bioelectromagnetic forward problem: isolated source approach revis(it)ed.
    Stenroos M; Sarvas J
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Jun; 57(11):3517-35. PubMed ID: 22581305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dipole models for the EEG and MEG.
    Schimpf PH; Ramon C; Haueisen J
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2002 May; 49(5):409-18. PubMed ID: 12002172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Influence of anisotropic electrical conductivity in white matter tissue on the EEG/MEG forward and inverse solution. A high-resolution whole head simulation study.
    Güllmar D; Haueisen J; Reichenbach JR
    Neuroimage; 2010 May; 51(1):145-63. PubMed ID: 20156576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of head shape variations among individuals on the EEG/MEG forward and inverse problems.
    von Ellenrieder N; Muravchik CH; Wagner M; Nehorai A
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2009 Mar; 56(3):587-97. PubMed ID: 19389682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Spatial filter approach for comparison of the forward and inverse problems of electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography.
    Bradshaw LA; Wijesinghe RS; Wikswo JP
    Ann Biomed Eng; 2001 Mar; 29(3):214-26. PubMed ID: 11310783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of tissue conductivity anisotropy on EEG/MEG field and return current computation in a realistic head model: a simulation and visualization study using high-resolution finite element modeling.
    Wolters CH; Anwander A; Tricoche X; Weinstein D; Koch MA; MacLeod RS
    Neuroimage; 2006 Apr; 30(3):813-26. PubMed ID: 16364662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of the head model on EEG and MEG source connectivity analyses.
    Cho JH; Vorwerk J; Wolters CH; Knösche TR
    Neuroimage; 2015 Apr; 110():60-77. PubMed ID: 25638756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Effect of boundary element discretization on forward calculation and the inverse problem in electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography].
    Haueisen J; Böttner A; Funke M; Brauer H; Nowak H
    Biomed Tech (Berl); 1997 Sep; 42(9):240-8. PubMed ID: 9410154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Error bounds for EEG and MEG dipole source localization.
    Mosher JC; Spencer ME; Leahy RM; Lewis PS
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1993 May; 86(5):303-21. PubMed ID: 7685264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mapping human brain function with MEG and EEG: methods and validation.
    Darvas F; Pantazis D; Kucukaltun-Yildirim E; Leahy RM
    Neuroimage; 2004; 23 Suppl 1():S289-99. PubMed ID: 15501098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sensitivity of MEG and EEG to source orientation.
    Ahlfors SP; Han J; Belliveau JW; Hämäläinen MS
    Brain Topogr; 2010 Sep; 23(3):227-32. PubMed ID: 20640882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Application of quasi-static magnetic reciprocity to finite element models of the MEG lead-field.
    Schimpf PH
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2007 Nov; 54(11):2082-8. PubMed ID: 18018704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sensitivity of EEG and MEG measurements to tissue conductivity.
    Gençer NG; Acar CE
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Mar; 49(5):701-17. PubMed ID: 15070197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Spatial relationship of source localizations in patients with focal epilepsy: Comparison of MEG and EEG with a three spherical shells and a boundary element volume conductor model.
    Scheler G; Fischer MJ; Genow A; Hummel C; Rampp S; Paulini A; Hopfengärtner R; Kaltenhäuser M; Stefan H
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2007 Apr; 28(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 16933294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On the EEG/MEG forward problem solution for distributed cortical sources.
    von Ellenrieder N; Valdés-Hernández PA; Muravchik CH
    Med Biol Eng Comput; 2009 Oct; 47(10):1083-91. PubMed ID: 19730912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dipole source analysis for readiness potential and field using simultaneously measured EEG and MEG signals.
    Mideksa KG; Hellriegel H; Hoogenboom N; Krause H; Schnitzler A; Deuschl G; Raethjen J; Heute U; Muthuraman M
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2013; 2013():1362-5. PubMed ID: 24109949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantification of the benefit from integrating MEG and EEG data in minimum l2-norm estimation.
    Molins A; Stufflebeam SM; Brown EN; Hämäläinen MS
    Neuroimage; 2008 Sep; 42(3):1069-77. PubMed ID: 18602485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.