OBJECTIVE: To test the capacity of a sentence verification (SV) task to reliably activate receptive language areas. Presurgical evaluation of language is useful in predicting postsurgical deficits in patients who are candidates for neurosurgery. Productive language tasks have been successfully elaborated, but more conflicting results have been found in receptive language mapping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two right-handed healthy controls made true-false semantic judgements of brief sentences presented auditorily. RESULTS: Group maps showed reliable functional activations in the frontal and temporoparietal language areas. At the individual level, the SV task showed activation located in receptive language areas in 100% of the participants with strong left-sided distributions (mean lateralisation index of 69.27). CONCLUSION: The SV task can be considered a useful tool in evaluating receptive language function in individual subjects. This study is a first step towards designing the fMRI task which may serve to presurgically map receptive language functions.
OBJECTIVE: To test the capacity of a sentence verification (SV) task to reliably activate receptive language areas. Presurgical evaluation of language is useful in predicting postsurgical deficits in patients who are candidates for neurosurgery. Productive language tasks have been successfully elaborated, but more conflicting results have been found in receptive language mapping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two right-handed healthy controls made true-false semantic judgements of brief sentences presented auditorily. RESULTS: Group maps showed reliable functional activations in the frontal and temporoparietal language areas. At the individual level, the SV task showed activation located in receptive language areas in 100% of the participants with strong left-sided distributions (mean lateralisation index of 69.27). CONCLUSION: The SV task can be considered a useful tool in evaluating receptive language function in individual subjects. This study is a first step towards designing the fMRI task which may serve to presurgically map receptive language functions.
Authors: K Deblaere; W H Backes; P Hofman; P Vandemaele; P A Boon; K Vonck; P Boon; J Troost; J Vermeulen; J Wilmink; E Achten; A Aldenkamp Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: A Carpentier; K R Pugh; M Westerveld; C Studholme; O Skrinjar; J L Thompson; D D Spencer; R T Constable Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.864
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: D S Sabsevitz; S J Swanson; T A Hammeke; M V Spanaki; E T Possing; G L Morris; W M Mueller; J R Binder Journal: Neurology Date: 2003-06-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Abigail R Bradshaw; Paul A Thompson; Alexander C Wilson; Dorothy V M Bishop; Zoe V J Woodhead Journal: PeerJ Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Meichao Zhang; Nicola Savill; Daniel S Margulies; Jonathan Smallwood; Elizabeth Jefferies Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.379