2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.01.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the distortion of EEG signals caused by a hole in the skull mimicking the fontanel in the skull of human neonates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
35
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The limitations of existing experiments are that (1) the skull defect was filled with non-conducting air (except in (Flemming et al, 2005) for EEG); (2) the skull defect was large compared with the sensor planes (skull-on versus skull-off); and (3) that evoked responses were used, which have a high variability with regard to source position, extent, orientation, and amplitude. Therefore, the objective of this study is to experimentally investigate the influence of conducting skull defects on EEG and MEG signals above and around a skull defect, using a well-defined current source under the middle and edge of the defect and next to it, in an in vivo rabbit model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The limitations of existing experiments are that (1) the skull defect was filled with non-conducting air (except in (Flemming et al, 2005) for EEG); (2) the skull defect was large compared with the sensor planes (skull-on versus skull-off); and (3) that evoked responses were used, which have a high variability with regard to source position, extent, orientation, and amplitude. Therefore, the objective of this study is to experimentally investigate the influence of conducting skull defects on EEG and MEG signals above and around a skull defect, using a well-defined current source under the middle and edge of the defect and next to it, in an in vivo rabbit model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It detects the extracranial magnetic fields produced by currents generated in the cerebral cortex, and is not affected by the fontanels and sutures of the skull (Flemming et al, 2005). This simplifies the interpretation of MEG signals, compared with EEG, and makes the localization of the active cortical areas more accurate particularly in children (Hämäläinen et al, 1993;Okada et al, 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…[24][25][26] Hence, compared with EEG signals, MEG signals are less likely to be distorted by postoperative skull defects as evidenced by these human and animal studies. [24][25][26] Furthermore, extraoperative IVEEG using subdural electrodes is less effective in detecting recurrent or residual epileptogenic zones after brain surgery. Epileptic discharges of differing amplitudes coexist in the unresected part of the cortex and the cortex affected by the resection, which is covered by gliotic tissues secondary to subdural scarring and arachnoid adhesions.…”
Section: Residual Auditory Aurasmentioning
confidence: 83%