171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10984206)
1. The application of electrical impedance tomography to reduce systematic errors in the EEG inverse problem--a simulation study.
Gonçalves S; de Munck JC; Heethaar RM; Lopes da Silva FH; van Dijk BW
Physiol Meas; 2000 Aug; 21(3):379-93. PubMed ID: 10984206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Determination of head conductivity frequency response in vivo with optimized EIT-EEG.
Dabek J; Kalogianni K; Rotgans E; van der Helm FCT; Kwakkel G; van Wegen EEH; Daffertshofer A; de Munck JC
Neuroimage; 2016 Feb; 127():484-495. PubMed ID: 26589336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In vivo measurement of the brain and skull resistivities using an EIT-based method and realistic models for the head.
Gonçalves SI; de Munck JC; Verbunt JP; Bijma F; Heethaar RM; Lopes da Silva F
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2003 Jun; 50(6):754-67. PubMed ID: 12814242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vivo measurement of the brain and skull resistivities using an EIT-based method and the combined analysis of SEF/SEP data.
Gonçalves S; de Munck JC; Verbunt JP; Heethaar RM; da Silva FH
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2003 Sep; 50(9):1124-8. PubMed ID: 12943281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dipole estimation errors due to not incorporating anisotropic conductivities in realistic head models for EEG source analysis.
Hallez H; Staelens S; Lemahieu I
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Oct; 54(20):6079-93. PubMed ID: 19779215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Skull Modeling Effects in Conductivity Estimates Using Parametric Electrical Impedance Tomography.
Fernandez-Corazza M; Turovets S; Luu P; Price N; Muravchik CH; Tucker D
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2018 Aug; 65(8):1785-1797. PubMed ID: 29989921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of head models on EEG simulations and inverse source localizations.
Ramon C; Schimpf PH; Haueisen J
Biomed Eng Online; 2006 Feb; 5():10. PubMed ID: 16466570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Neonatal EEG at scalp is focal and implies high skull conductivity in realistic neonatal head models.
Odabaee M; Tokariev A; Layeghy S; Mesbah M; Colditz PB; Ramon C; Vanhatalo S
Neuroimage; 2014 Aug; 96():73-80. PubMed ID: 24736169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The boundary element method in the forward and inverse problem of electrical impedance tomography.
de Munck JC; Faes TJ; Heethaar RM
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2000 Jun; 47(6):792-800. PubMed ID: 10833854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The influence of skull-conductivity misspecification on inverse source localization in realistically shaped finite element head models.
Pohlmeier R; Buchner H; Knoll G; Rienäcker A; Beckmann R; Pesch J
Brain Topogr; 1997; 9(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 9104826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Impact of skull sutures, spongiform bone distribution, and aging skull conductivities on the EEG forward and inverse problems.
McCann H; Beltrachini L
J Neural Eng; 2022 Feb; 19(1):. PubMed ID: 34915464
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Conventional and reciprocal approaches to the inverse dipole localization problem of electroencephalography.
Finke S; Gulrajani RM; Gotman J
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2003 Jun; 50(6):657-66. PubMed ID: 12814232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validating EEG source imaging using intracranial electrical stimulation.
Unnwongse K; Rampp S; Wehner T; Kowoll A; Parpaley Y; von Lehe M; Lanfer B; Rusiniak M; Wolters C; Wellmer J
Brain Commun; 2023; 5(1):fcad023. PubMed ID: 36824389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A new magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography (MREIT) algorithm: the RSM-MREIT algorithm with applications to estimation of human head conductivity.
Gao N; Zhu SA; He B
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Jun; 51(12):3067-83. PubMed ID: 16757863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A study of dipole localization accuracy for MEG and EEG using a human skull phantom.
Leahy RM; Mosher JC; Spencer ME; Huang MX; Lewine JD
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1998 Aug; 107(2):159-73. PubMed ID: 9751287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A global sensitivity analysis of three- and four-layer EEG conductivity models.
Vallaghé S; Clerc M
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2009 Apr; 56(4):988-95. PubMed ID: 19272874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dipole estimation errors due to differences in modeling anisotropic conductivities in realistic head models for EEG source analysis.
Hallez H; Vanrumste B; Van Hese P; Delputte S; Lemahieu I
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Apr; 53(7):1877-94. PubMed ID: 18364544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of skull conductivity perturbations on EEG dipole source analysis.
Chen F; Hallez H; Staelens S
Med Phys; 2010 Aug; 37(8):4475-84. PubMed ID: 20879606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of dipole position, orientation and noise on the accuracy of EEG source localization.
Whittingstall K; Stroink G; Gates L; Connolly JF; Finley A
Biomed Eng Online; 2003 Jun; 2():14. PubMed ID: 12807534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
