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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21912974)

  • 1. Comparison of the properties of EEG and MEG in detecting the electric activity of the brain.
    Malmivuo J
    Brain Topogr; 2012 Jan; 25(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 21912974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Simultaneous EEG and MEG source reconstruction in sparse electromagnetic source imaging.
    Ding L; Yuan H
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2013 Apr; 34(4):775-95. PubMed ID: 22102512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. EEG and MEG: relevance to neuroscience.
    Lopes da Silva F
    Neuron; 2013 Dec; 80(5):1112-28. PubMed ID: 24314724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Automated model selection in covariance estimation and spatial whitening of MEG and EEG signals.
    Engemann DA; Gramfort A
    Neuroimage; 2015 Mar; 108():328-42. PubMed ID: 25541187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Differences between MEG and high-density EEG source localizations using a distributed source model in comparison to fMRI.
    Klamer S; Elshahabi A; Lerche H; Braun C; Erb M; Scheffler K; Focke NK
    Brain Topogr; 2015 Jan; 28(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 25296614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of skull resistivity on the spatial resolutions of EEG and MEG.
    Malmivuo JA; Suihko VE
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 Jul; 51(7):1276-80. PubMed ID: 15248545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Volumetric imaging of brain activity with spatial-frequency decoding of neuromagnetic signals.
    Xiang J; Korman A; Samarasinghe KM; Wang X; Zhang F; Qiao H; Sun B; Wang F; Fan HH; Thompson EA
    J Neurosci Methods; 2015 Jan; 239():114-28. PubMed ID: 25455340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Brainstorm: a user-friendly application for MEG/EEG analysis.
    Tadel F; Baillet S; Mosher JC; Pantazis D; Leahy RM
    Comput Intell Neurosci; 2011; 2011():879716. PubMed ID: 21584256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Detection of epileptiform activity by human interpreters: blinded comparison between electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography.
    Iwasaki M; Pestana E; Burgess RC; Lüders HO; Shamoto H; Nakasato N
    Epilepsia; 2005 Jan; 46(1):59-68. PubMed ID: 15660769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Head models and dynamic causal modeling of subcortical activity using magnetoencephalographic/electroencephalographic data.
    Attal Y; Maess B; Friederici A; David O
    Rev Neurosci; 2012; 23(1):85-95. PubMed ID: 22718615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Modeling and detecting deep brain activity with MEG & EEG.
    Attal Y; Bhattacharjee M; Yelnik J; Cottereau B; Lefèvre J; Okada Y; Bardinet E; Chupin M; Baillet S
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():4937-40. PubMed ID: 18003114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Yield of repeat routine MEG recordings in clinical practice.
    Alkawadri R; Burgess R; Isitan C; Wang IZ; Kakisaka Y; Alexopoulos AV
    Epilepsy Behav; 2013 May; 27(2):416-9. PubMed ID: 23541858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A three domain covariance framework for EEG/MEG data.
    Roś BP; Bijma F; de Gunst MC; de Munck JC
    Neuroimage; 2015 Oct; 119():305-15. PubMed ID: 26072253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spatial neuronal synchronization and the waveform of oscillations: Implications for EEG and MEG.
    Schaworonkow N; Nikulin VV
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2019 May; 15(5):e1007055. PubMed ID: 31086368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A technique to consider mismatches between fMRI and EEG/MEG sources for fMRI-constrained EEG/MEG source imaging: a preliminary simulation study.
    Im CH; Lee SY
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Dec; 51(23):6005-21. PubMed ID: 17110766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. MEG versus EEG: influence of background activity on interictal spike detection.
    Ramantani G; Boor R; Paetau R; Ille N; Feneberg R; Rupp A; Boppel T; Scherg M; Rating D; Bast T
    J Clin Neurophysiol; 2006 Dec; 23(6):498-508. PubMed ID: 17143138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. MEG versus EEG localization test using implanted sources in the human brain.
    Cohen D; Cuffin BN; Yunokuchi K; Maniewski R; Purcell C; Cosgrove GR; Ives J; Kennedy JG; Schomer DL
    Ann Neurol; 1990 Dec; 28(6):811-7. PubMed ID: 2285267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. DYNAMO: concurrent dynamic multi-model source localization method for EEG and/or MEG.
    Antelis JM; Minguez J
    J Neurosci Methods; 2013 Jan; 212(1):28-42. PubMed ID: 23022309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Magnetoencephalography is more successful for screening and localizing frontal lobe epilepsy than electroencephalography.
    Ossenblok P; de Munck JC; Colon A; Drolsbach W; Boon P
    Epilepsia; 2007 Nov; 48(11):2139-49. PubMed ID: 17662061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Concordance between routine interictal magnetoencephalography and simultaneous scalp electroencephalography in a sample of patients with epilepsy.
    Kirsch HE; Mantle M; Nagarajan SS
    J Clin Neurophysiol; 2007 Jun; 24(3):215-31. PubMed ID: 17545825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.