ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2017
Forward and inverse effects of the complete electrode model in neonatal EEG.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Fontanel compensation for infant electroencephalography forward modeling method].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024Article
- A comprehensive study on electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography sensitivity to cortical and subcortical sources.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Structural templates for imaging EEG cortical sources in infants.NeuroImage · 2021Article
- FEMfuns: A Volume Conduction Modeling Pipeline that Includes Resistive, Capacitive or Dispersive Tissue and Electrodes.Neuroinformatics · 2020Article
- Zeffiro User Interface for Electromagnetic Brain Imaging: a GPU Accelerated FEM Tool for Forward and Inverse Computations in Matlab.Neuroinformatics · 2020Article
- IFCN-endorsed practical guidelines for clinical magnetoencephalography (MEG).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper investigates finite element method-based modeling in the context of neonatal electroencephalography (EEG). In particular, the focus lies on electrode boundary conditions. We compare the complete electrode model (CEM) with the point electrode model (PEM), which is the current standard in EEG. In the CEM, the voltage experienced by an electrode is modeled more realistically as the integral average of the potential distribution over its contact surface, whereas the PEM relies on a point value. Consequently, the CEM takes into account the subelectrode shunting currents, which are absent in the PEM. In this study, we aim to find out how the electrode voltage predicted by these two models differ, if standard size electrodes are attached to a head of a neonate. Additionally, we study voltages and voltage variation on electrode surfaces with two source locations:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.