Literature DB >> 3840770

A comparison of moving dipole inverse solutions using EEG's and MEG's.

B N Cuffin.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  1985        PMID： 3840770     DOI： 10.1109/TBME.1985.325622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng        ISSN： 0018-9294            Impact factor:   4.538


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

Review 1.  EEG versus MEG localization accuracy: theory and experiment.

Authors:  D Cohen; B N Cuffin
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.020

2.  DSL and MUSIC under model misspecification and noise-conditions.

Authors:  Z Zhang; D L Jewett
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.020

3.  Comparison between electrocardiographic and magnetocardiographic inverse solutions using the boundary element method.

Authors:  R Hren; X Zhang; G Stroink
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Relative influence of model assumptions and measurement procedures in the analysis of the MEG.

Authors:  J W Meijs; M J Peters; H B Boom; F H Lopes da Silva
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Influence of measurement noise and electrode mislocalisation on EEG dipole-source localisation.

Authors:  G Van Hoey; B Vanrumste; M D'Havé; R Van de Walle; I Lemahieu; P Boon
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.602
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.