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 *

776 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24736169)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Spatial patterning of the neonatal EEG suggests a need for a high number of electrodes.
    Odabaee M; Freeman WJ; Colditz PB; Ramon C; Vanhatalo S
    Neuroimage; 2013 Mar; 68():229-35. PubMed ID: 23246993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of measurement noise and electrode density on the spatial resolution of cortical potential distribution with different resistivity values for the skull.
    Ryynänen OR; Hyttinen JA; Malmivuo JA
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2006 Sep; 53(9):1851-8. PubMed ID: 16941841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of fontanel on scalp EEG potentials in the neonate.
    Gargiulo P; Belfiore P; Friðgeirsson EA; Vanhatalo S; Ramon C
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2015 Sep; 126(9):1703-10. PubMed ID: 25553851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Improved EEG source analysis using low-resolution conductivity estimation in a four-compartment finite element head model.
    Lew S; Wolters CH; Anwander A; Makeig S; MacLeod RS
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2009 Sep; 30(9):2862-78. PubMed ID: 19117275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of head tissue conductivity in forward and inverse magnetoencephalographic simulations using realistic head models.
    Van Uitert R; Johnson C; Zhukov L
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 Dec; 51(12):2129-37. PubMed ID: 15605860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Influences of skull segmentation inaccuracies on EEG source analysis.
    Lanfer B; Scherg M; Dannhauer M; Knösche TR; Burger M; Wolters CH
    Neuroimage; 2012 Aug; 62(1):418-31. PubMed ID: 22584227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of head models on neuromagnetic fields and inverse source localizations.
    Ramon C; Haueisen J; Schimpf PH
    Biomed Eng Online; 2006 Oct; 5():55. PubMed ID: 17059601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Estimating brain conductivities and dipole source signals with EEG arrays.
    Gutiérrez D; Nehorai A; Muravchik CH
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 Dec; 51(12):2113-22. PubMed ID: 15605858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Simultaneous head tissue conductivity and EEG source location estimation.
    Akalin Acar Z; Acar CE; Makeig S
    Neuroimage; 2016 Jan; 124(Pt A):168-180. PubMed ID: 26302675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of uncertainty in head tissue conductivity and complexity on EEG forward modeling in neonates.
    Azizollahi H; Aarabi A; Wallois F
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2016 Oct; 37(10):3604-22. PubMed ID: 27238749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of conductivity uncertainties and modeling errors on EEG source localization using a 2-D model.
    Awada KA; Jackson DR; Baumann SB; Williams JT; Wilton DR; Fink PW; Prasky BR
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1998 Sep; 45(9):1135-45. PubMed ID: 9735563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cortical imaging on a head template: a simulation study using a resistor mesh model (RMM).
    Chauveau N; Franceries X; Aubry F; Celsis P; Rigaud B
    Brain Topogr; 2008 Sep; 21(1):52-60. PubMed ID: 18629625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Effect of electrode density and measurement noise on the spatial resolution of cortical potential distribution.
    Ryynänen OR; Hyttinen JA; Laarne PH; Malmivuo JA
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 Sep; 51(9):1547-54. PubMed ID: 15376503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 39.