2001
DOI: 10.1109/10.923794
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correction to "Regional head tissue conductivity estimation for improved EEG analysis"

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
36
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
3
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…through biological tissue and assuming standard radii and conductivity values for the human brain, CSF, skull and scalp (Rush and Driscoll, 1969;Ferree et al, 2000). We have done this in computer simulation by injecting current through a pair of electrodes and calculating the potentials at the underlying scalp locations.…”
Section: Electric Displacement Currentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…through biological tissue and assuming standard radii and conductivity values for the human brain, CSF, skull and scalp (Rush and Driscoll, 1969;Ferree et al, 2000). We have done this in computer simulation by injecting current through a pair of electrodes and calculating the potentials at the underlying scalp locations.…”
Section: Electric Displacement Currentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The electrical resistivity values used in the literature show a wide variation, and were based on in vitro or animal measurements. Recently, several studies attempted to estimate in vivo the electrical resistivities of the surrounding and including the brain [23], [26], [47], [89], [109]. Based on in vivo electrical impedance tomography (EIT), our group measured the electrical resistivities of brain, skull, and scalp in six different subjects, using realistic models of the head, and the boundary element method to solve the forward problem [32].…”
Section: F Volume Conductor Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1). When we computed potentials at standard locations for the 129 electrodes configuration montage on the spherical phantom and compared the results with the analytical solution [2] available for a 4-shell spherical phantom we observed good agreement, save for some minor discrepancies (average error is no more than a few percents) caused by the mesh orientation effects (the cubic versa spherical symmetry). Similarly, we found the good agreement for spherical phantoms between our results and the solution of the Poisson equation using the standard FEM packages such as FEMLAB.…”
Section: Computational Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Forward calculations are necessary in the computational formulation of these problems. Until recently, most practical research in this field has opted for analytical or semianalytical models of a human head in the forward calculations [1,2]. This is in contrast to approaches that use realistic 3D head geometry for purposes of significantly improving the accuracy of the forward and inverse solutions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%