Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/98582
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPitcher, J.-
dc.contributor.authorDoeltgen, S.-
dc.contributor.authorGoldsworthy, M.-
dc.contributor.authorSchneider, L.-
dc.contributor.authorVallence, A.-
dc.contributor.authorSmith, A.-
dc.contributor.authorSemmler, J.-
dc.contributor.authorMcDonnell, M.-
dc.contributor.authorRidding, M.-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Neurophysiology, 2015; 126(12):2337-2341-
dc.identifier.issn1388-2457-
dc.identifier.issn1872-8952-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/98582-
dc.description.abstractAbstract not available-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJulia B. Pitcher, Sebastian H. Doeltgen, Mitchell R. Goldsworthy, Luke A. Schneider, Ann-Maree Vallence, Ashleigh E. Smith, John G. Semmler, Michelle N. McDonnell, Michael C. Ridding-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland-
dc.rights© 2015 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.011-
dc.subjectCorticomotor stimulus–response curves; Resting motor threshold; Ageing; Children; Motor evoked potential; First dorsal interosseous-
dc.titleA comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.011-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidPitcher, J. [0000-0002-9648-7540]-
dc.identifier.orcidGoldsworthy, M. [0000-0002-0688-9475]-
dc.identifier.orcidSemmler, J. [0000-0003-0260-8047]-
dc.identifier.orcidRidding, M. [0000-0001-5657-9136]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Paediatrics publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.