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 *

210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26302675)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Evaluation of skull conductivity using SCALE head tissue conductivity estimation using EEG.
    Acar ZA; Makeig S
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2022 Jul; 2022():4826-4829. PubMed ID: 36086241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. High-resolution EEG source imaging of one-year-old children.
    Acar ZA; Ortiz-Mantilla S; Benasich A; Makeig S
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2016 Aug; 2016():117-120. PubMed ID: 28268293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effect of brain-to-skull conductivity ratio on EEG source localization accuracy.
    Wang G; Ren D
    Biomed Res Int; 2013; 2013():459346. PubMed ID: 23691502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Inter-Subject Variability of Skull Conductivity and Thickness in Calibrated Realistic Head Models.
    Antonakakis M; Schrader S; Aydin Ü; Khan A; Gross J; Zervakis M; Rampp S; Wolters CH
    Neuroimage; 2020 Dec; 223():117353. PubMed ID: 32919058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Probabilistic forward model for electroencephalography source analysis.
    Plis SM; George JS; Jun SC; Ranken DM; Volegov PL; Schmidt DM
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(17):5309-27. PubMed ID: 17762088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Variation in Reported Human Head Tissue Electrical Conductivity Values.
    McCann H; Pisano G; Beltrachini L
    Brain Topogr; 2019 Sep; 32(5):825-858. PubMed ID: 31054104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Sensitivity of EEG and MEG measurements to tissue conductivity.
    Gençer NG; Acar CE
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Mar; 49(5):701-17. PubMed ID: 15070197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Minimum-norm cortical source estimation in layered head models is robust against skull conductivity error.
    Stenroos M; Hauk O
    Neuroimage; 2013 Nov; 81():265-272. PubMed ID: 23639259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A cortical potential imaging study from simultaneous extra- and intracranial electrical recordings by means of the finite element method.
    Zhang Y; Ding L; van Drongelen W; Hecox K; Frim DM; He B
    Neuroimage; 2006 Jul; 31(4):1513-24. PubMed ID: 16631381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. EEG and MEG coherence: measures of functional connectivity at distinct spatial scales of neocortical dynamics.
    Srinivasan R; Winter WR; Ding J; Nunez PL
    J Neurosci Methods; 2007 Oct; 166(1):41-52. PubMed ID: 17698205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of skull-to-brain conductivity ratio for high resolution EEG source localization.
    Demoulin G; Pruvost-Robieux E; Marchi A; Ramdani C; Badier JM; Bartolomei F; Gavaret M
    Biomed Phys Eng Express; 2021 Aug; 7(5):. PubMed ID: 34298528
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A novel method for calibrating head models to account for variability in conductivity and its evaluation in a sphere model.
    Schrader S; Antonakakis M; Rampp S; Engwer C; Wolters CH
    Phys Med Biol; 2020 Dec; 65(24):245043. PubMed ID: 33113524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.