BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a less invasive way of mapping brain functions. The reliability of fMRI for localizing language-related function is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: We performed a detailed analysis of language fMRI reliability by comparing the results of 3-T fMRI with maps determined by extraoperative electrocortical stimulation (ECS). METHODS: This study was performed on 8 epileptic patients who underwent subdural electrode placement. The tasks performed during fMRI included verb generation, abstract/concrete categorization, and picture naming. We focused on the frontal lobe, which was effectively activated by these tasks. In extraoperative ECS, 4 tasks were combined to determine the eloquent areas: spontaneous speech, picture naming, reading, and comprehension. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity with different Z score thresholds for each task and appropriate matching criteria. For further analysis, we divided the frontal lobe into 5 areas and investigated intergyrus variations in sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The abstract/concrete categorization task was the most sensitive and specific task in fMRI, whereas the picture naming task detected eloquent areas most efficiently in ECS. The combination of the abstract/concrete categorization task and a 3-mm matching criterion gave the best tradeoff (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 61%) when the Z score was 2.24. As for intergyrus variation, the posterior inferior frontal gyrus showed the best tradeoff (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 59%), whereas the anterior middle frontal gyrus had low specificity. CONCLUSION: Despite different tasks for fMRI and extraoperative ECS, the relatively low specificity might be caused by a fundamental discrepancy between the 2 techniques. Reliability of language fMRI activation might differ, depending on the brain region.
BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a less invasive way of mapping brain functions. The reliability of fMRI for localizing language-related function is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: We performed a detailed analysis of language fMRI reliability by comparing the results of 3-T fMRI with maps determined by extraoperative electrocortical stimulation (ECS). METHODS: This study was performed on 8 epilepticpatients who underwent subdural electrode placement. The tasks performed during fMRI included verb generation, abstract/concrete categorization, and picture naming. We focused on the frontal lobe, which was effectively activated by these tasks. In extraoperative ECS, 4 tasks were combined to determine the eloquent areas: spontaneous speech, picture naming, reading, and comprehension. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity with different Z score thresholds for each task and appropriate matching criteria. For further analysis, we divided the frontal lobe into 5 areas and investigated intergyrus variations in sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The abstract/concrete categorization task was the most sensitive and specific task in fMRI, whereas the picture naming task detected eloquent areas most efficiently in ECS. The combination of the abstract/concrete categorization task and a 3-mm matching criterion gave the best tradeoff (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 61%) when the Z score was 2.24. As for intergyrus variation, the posterior inferior frontal gyrus showed the best tradeoff (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 59%), whereas the anterior middle frontal gyrus had low specificity. CONCLUSION: Despite different tasks for fMRI and extraoperative ECS, the relatively low specificity might be caused by a fundamental discrepancy between the 2 techniques. Reliability of language fMRI activation might differ, depending on the brain region.
Authors: Milena Korostenskaja; Po-Ching Chen; Christine M Salinas; Michael Westerveld; Peter Brunner; Gerwin Schalk; Jane C Cook; James Baumgartner; Ki H Lee Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Milena Korostenskaja; Adam J Wilson; Douglas F Rose; Peter Brunner; Gerwin Schalk; James Leach; Francesco T Mangano; Hisako Fujiwara; Leonid Rozhkov; Elana Harris; Po-Ching Chen; Joo-Hee Seo; Ki H Lee Journal: Clin EEG Neurosci Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 1.843
Authors: Michael D Fox; Tianyi Qian; Joseph R Madsen; Danhong Wang; Meiling Li; Manling Ge; Huan-Cong Zuo; David M Groppe; Ashesh D Mehta; Bo Hong; Hesheng Liu Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Madison M Berl; Lauren A Zimmaro; Omar I Khan; Irene Dustin; Eva Ritzl; Elizabeth S Duke; Leigh N Sepeta; Susumu Sato; William H Theodore; William D Gaillard Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: F Xavier Castellanos; Adriana Di Martino; R Cameron Craddock; Ashesh D Mehta; Michael P Milham Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 6.556