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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21097131)

  • 1. Influence of evoked response latency and amplitude on stimulus artifact removal.
    Oyama AM; Itiki C
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2010; 2010():6091-4. PubMed ID: 21097131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adaptive estimation of latency changes in evoked potentials.
    Kong X; Thakor NV
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1996 Feb; 43(2):189-97. PubMed ID: 8682530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Factors affecting the stimulus artifact tail in surface-recorded somatosensory-evoked potentials.
    Hua Y; Lovely DF; Doraiswami R
    Med Biol Eng Comput; 2006 Mar; 44(3):226-41. PubMed ID: 16937164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Artifact reduction in magnetic stimulation.
    Jakob C; Mathis J; Weyh T; Struppler A
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1993 Aug; 89(4):287-9. PubMed ID: 7688693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Average evoked potentials--clinical applications of short latency responses.
    Tandon OP
    Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 1998 Apr; 42(2):172-88. PubMed ID: 10225045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Application of triphasic pulses with adjustable phase amplitude ratio (PAR) for cochlear ECAP recording: I. amplitude growth functions.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    J Neurosci Methods; 2012 Mar; 205(1):202-11. PubMed ID: 22209768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Stimulus artifact removal using a software-based two-stage peak detection algorithm.
    O'Keeffe DT; Lyons GM; Donnelly AE; Byrne CA
    J Neurosci Methods; 2001 Aug; 109(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 11513948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Suppression of stimulus artifact contaminating electrically evoked electromyography.
    Liu J; Li S; Li X; Klein C; Rymer WZ; Zhou P
    NeuroRehabilitation; 2014; 34(2):381-9. PubMed ID: 24419021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Stimulation artifact correction method for estimation of early cortico-cortical evoked potentials.
    Trebaul L; Rudrauf D; Job AS; Mălîia MD; Popa I; Barborica A; Minotti L; Mîndruţă I; Kahane P; David O
    J Neurosci Methods; 2016 May; 264():94-102. PubMed ID: 26952846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cochlear implant artifact attenuation in late auditory evoked potentials: a single channel approach.
    Mc Laughlin M; Lopez Valdes A; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():84-95. PubMed ID: 23727626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of recording instrumentation on the stimulus artifact tail in the surface acquisition of somatosensory evoked potentials.
    Hamming N; Lovely DF
    Med Eng Phys; 2007 Jan; 29(1):148-53. PubMed ID: 16442829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of BCG artifact removal methods for evoked responses in simultaneous EEG-fMRI.
    Shams N; Alain C; Strother S
    J Neurosci Methods; 2015 Apr; 245():137-46. PubMed ID: 25721269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials.
    Hays MA; Kamali G; Koubeissi MZ; Sarma SV; Crone NE; Smith RJ; Kang JY
    Brain Stimul; 2023; 16(3):772-782. PubMed ID: 37141936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Application of velocity filters to somatosensory evoked potential measurements for removal of stimulus artifact.
    Yazdani N; Chan AD
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():6213-6. PubMed ID: 17945946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of Stimulus Polarity and Artifact Reduction Method on the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
    Hughes ML; Goehring JL; Baudhuin JL
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(3):332-343. PubMed ID: 28045836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automated removal of stimulus artifact in nerve conduction studies.
    Tracey BH; Krishnamachari S
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():6360-3. PubMed ID: 17945961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Nonlinear adaptive filtering of stimulus artifact.
    Grieve R; Parker PA; Hudgins B; Englehart K
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2000 Mar; 47(3):389-95. PubMed ID: 10743781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using independent component analysis to remove artifacts in visual cortex responses elicited by electrical stimulation of the optic nerve.
    Lu Y; Cao P; Sun J; Wang J; Li L; Ren Q; Chen Y; Chai X
    J Neural Eng; 2012 Apr; 9(2):026002. PubMed ID: 22306622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Stereotactic recordings of median nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials in the human pre-supplementary motor area.
    Barba C; Frot M; Guénot M; Mauguière F
    Eur J Neurosci; 2001 Jan; 13(2):347-56. PubMed ID: 11168539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts.
    Gransier R; Deprez H; Hofmann M; Moonen M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():149-160. PubMed ID: 26994660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.