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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22718615)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Dynamic causal modeling of evoked responses in EEG and MEG.
    David O; Kiebel SJ; Harrison LM; Mattout J; Kilner JM; Friston KJ
    Neuroimage; 2006 May; 30(4):1255-72. PubMed ID: 16473023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Spatiotemporal forward solution of the EEG and MEG using network modeling.
    Jirsa VK; Jantzen KJ; Fuchs A; Kelso JA
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2002 May; 21(5):493-504. PubMed ID: 12071620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A Bayesian approach to introducing anatomo-functional priors in the EEG/MEG inverse problem.
    Baillet S; Garnero L
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1997 May; 44(5):374-85. PubMed ID: 9125822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Modeling sparse connectivity between underlying brain sources for EEG/MEG.
    Haufe S; Tomioka R; Nolte G; Müller KR; Kawanabe M
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2010 Aug; 57(8):1954-63. PubMed ID: 20483681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fundamentals of electroencefalography, magnetoencefalography, and functional magnetic resonance imaging.
    Babiloni C; Pizzella V; Gratta CD; Ferretti A; Romani GL
    Int Rev Neurobiol; 2009; 86():67-80. PubMed ID: 19607991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Cortical Signal Suppression (CSS) for Detection of Subcortical Activity Using MEG and EEG.
    Samuelsson JG; Khan S; Sundaram P; Peled N; Hämäläinen MS
    Brain Topogr; 2019 Mar; 32(2):215-228. PubMed ID: 30604048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Estimation of neural dynamics from MEG/EEG cortical current density maps: application to the reconstruction of large-scale cortical synchrony.
    David O; Garnero L; Cosmelli D; Varela FJ
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2002 Sep; 49(9):975-87. PubMed ID: 12214887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Multi-area neural mass modeling of EEG and MEG signals.
    Babajani-Feremi A; Soltanian-Zadeh H
    Neuroimage; 2010 Sep; 52(3):793-811. PubMed ID: 20080193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Nonlinear connectivity by Granger causality.
    Marinazzo D; Liao W; Chen H; Stramaglia S
    Neuroimage; 2011 Sep; 58(2):330-8. PubMed ID: 20132895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sparsity enables estimation of both subcortical and cortical activity from MEG and EEG.
    Krishnaswamy P; Obregon-Henao G; Ahveninen J; Khan S; Babadi B; Iglesias JE; Hämäläinen MS; Purdon PL
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2017 Nov; 114(48):E10465-E10474. PubMed ID: 29138310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG/MEG with lead field parameterization.
    Kiebel SJ; David O; Friston KJ
    Neuroimage; 2006 May; 30(4):1273-84. PubMed ID: 16490364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the effect of volume conduction on EEG coherence with the effect of field spread on MEG coherence.
    Winter WR; Nunez PL; Ding J; Srinivasan R
    Stat Med; 2007 Sep; 26(21):3946-57. PubMed ID: 17607723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.