1988
DOI: 10.1007/bf02442255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The boundary element method (BEM) was used for calculating the signal expected at each magnetoencephalograph sensor, for each dipole location (deMunck, 1992;Oostendorp and Van Oosterom, 1992). The computation of the MEG forward solution has been shown to require only the inner skull boundary to achieve an accurate solution (Meijs et al, 1988;Hamalainen and Sarvas, 1989).…”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The boundary element method (BEM) was used for calculating the signal expected at each magnetoencephalograph sensor, for each dipole location (deMunck, 1992;Oostendorp and Van Oosterom, 1992). The computation of the MEG forward solution has been shown to require only the inner skull boundary to achieve an accurate solution (Meijs et al, 1988;Hamalainen and Sarvas, 1989).…”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The magnitude factor (MAG) is a measure of the difference in magnitude between the two and is defined as follows (Meijs et al, 1988):…”
Section: Quantitative Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been frequently reported that just considering the inner skull boundary is sufficient for the MEG forward calculations [Meijs et al, 1988;Hämäläinen and Sarvas, 1989]. The boundary surface used for the BEM was generated by commercial source analysis software (ASA v. 2.1; ANT Software) and was composed of 1,016 elements and 510 nodes.…”
Section: Simulation Study Using Forward Data Simulation Set-ups and Rmentioning
confidence: 99%