BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the reproducibility of functional MR imaging (fMRI) activation (volume and laterality) within both inferior frontal and temporoparietal regions of interest for both receptive and expressive language tasks. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated in fMRI experiments for 6 language tasks: verb generation, confrontation naming, semantic decision making, visual sentence comprehension, auditory sentence comprehension, and story listening. Each subject was scanned during 2 separate sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. Laterality of activation was defined by laterality indices (LIs), which were calculated by 2 methods: one method based on the measured volume of activation and the other method based on the F statistic of the activation. Reproducibility was calculated by using concurrence ratios for the volume of activation (R(overlap), R(volume)) and test-retest correlation for LIs. RESULTS: All tasks generated reproducible LIs within at least one of the regions of interest, but verb generation produced the highest test-retest correlations (r = 0.99) within both regions of interest. Verb generation was associated with the highest average concurrence ratios within the inferior frontal region of interest (R(overlap) = 45.2; R(volume) = 70.9). In general, the concurrence ratios were lower within the temporoparietal region of interest compared with the inferior frontal region of interest. LIs calculated with F statistics were more reproducible than the LIs calculated by activation volume. CONCLUSION: fMRI is able to provide reproducible LIs in both inferior frontal and temporoparietal regions for assessing hemispheric dominance in language processing. The volume of activation, especially within the temporoparietal regions, is less reproducible than the laterality of activation, so the former should be used with caution.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the reproducibility of functional MR imaging (fMRI) activation (volume and laterality) within both inferior frontal and temporoparietal regions of interest for both receptive and expressive language tasks. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated in fMRI experiments for 6 language tasks: verb generation, confrontation naming, semantic decision making, visual sentence comprehension, auditory sentence comprehension, and story listening. Each subject was scanned during 2 separate sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. Laterality of activation was defined by laterality indices (LIs), which were calculated by 2 methods: one method based on the measured volume of activation and the other method based on the F statistic of the activation. Reproducibility was calculated by using concurrence ratios for the volume of activation (R(overlap), R(volume)) and test-retest correlation for LIs. RESULTS: All tasks generated reproducible LIs within at least one of the regions of interest, but verb generation produced the highest test-retest correlations (r = 0.99) within both regions of interest. Verb generation was associated with the highest average concurrence ratios within the inferior frontal region of interest (R(overlap) = 45.2; R(volume) = 70.9). In general, the concurrence ratios were lower within the temporoparietal region of interest compared with the inferior frontal region of interest. LIs calculated with F statistics were more reproducible than the LIs calculated by activation volume. CONCLUSION: fMRI is able to provide reproducible LIs in both inferior frontal and temporoparietal regions for assessing hemispheric dominance in language processing. The volume of activation, especially within the temporoparietal regions, is less reproducible than the laterality of activation, so the former should be used with caution.
Authors: J A Springer; J R Binder; T A Hammeke; S J Swanson; J A Frost; P S Bellgowan; C C Brewer; H M Perry; G L Morris; W M Mueller Journal: Brain Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Mohamed L Seghier; François Lazeyras; Alan J Pegna; Jean-Marie Annoni; Ivan Zimine; Eugène Mayer; Christoph M Michel; Asaid Khateb Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: R R Benson; D B FitzGerald; L L LeSueur; D N Kennedy; K K Kwong; B R Buchbinder; T L Davis; R M Weisskoff; T M Talavage; W J Logan; G R Cosgrove; J W Belliveau; B R Rosen Journal: Neurology Date: 1999-03-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: P Sabbah; F Chassoux; C Leveque; E Landre; S Baudoin-Chial; B Devaux; M Mann; S Godon-Hardy; C Nioche; A Aït-Ameur; J L Sarrazin; J P Chodkiewicz; Y S Cordoliani Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: S Lehéricy; L Cohen; B Bazin; S Samson; E Giacomini; R Rougetet; L Hertz-Pannier; D Le Bihan; C Marsault; M Baulac Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-04-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Guy Vingerhoets; Karel Deblaere; Walter H Backes; Eric Achten; Paul Boon; Peter J Boon; Paul Hofman; Jan Vermeulen; Kristl Vonck; Jan Wilmink; Albert P Aldenkamp Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Gaëlle E Doucet; Dorian Pustina; Christopher Skidmore; Ashwini Sharan; Michael R Sperling; Joseph I Tracy Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 5.038