BACKGROUND: The emerging insight into resting-state cortical networks has been important in our understanding of the fundamental architecture of brain organization. These networks, which were originally identified with functional magnetic resonance imaging, are also seen in the correlation topography of the infraslow rhythms of local field potentials. Because of the fundamental nature of these networks and their independence from task-related activations, we posit that, in addition to their neuroscientific relevance, these slow cortical potential networks could play an important role in clinical brain mapping. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether these networks would be useful in identifying eloquent cortex such as sensorimotor cortex in patients both awake and under anesthesia. METHODS: This study included 9 subjects undergoing surgical treatment for intractable epilepsy. Slow cortical potentials were recorded from the cortical surface in patients while awake and under propofol anesthesia. To test brain-mapping utility, slow cortical potential networks were identified with data-driven (seed-independent) and anatomy-driven (seed-based) approaches. With electrocortical stimulation used as the gold standard for comparison, the sensitivity and specificity of these networks for identifying sensorimotor cortex were calculated. RESULTS: Networks identified with a data-driven approach in patients under anesthesia and awake were 90% and 93% sensitive and 58% and 55% specific for sensorimotor cortex, respectively. Networks identified with systematic seed selection in patients under anesthesia and awake were 78% and 83% sensitive and 67% and 60% specific, respectively. CONCLUSION: Resting-state networks may be useful for tailoring stimulation mapping and could provide a means of identifying eloquent regions in patients while under anesthesia.
BACKGROUND: The emerging insight into resting-state cortical networks has been important in our understanding of the fundamental architecture of brain organization. These networks, which were originally identified with functional magnetic resonance imaging, are also seen in the correlation topography of the infraslow rhythms of local field potentials. Because of the fundamental nature of these networks and their independence from task-related activations, we posit that, in addition to their neuroscientific relevance, these slow cortical potential networks could play an important role in clinical brain mapping. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether these networks would be useful in identifying eloquent cortex such as sensorimotor cortex in patients both awake and under anesthesia. METHODS: This study included 9 subjects undergoing surgical treatment for intractable epilepsy. Slow cortical potentials were recorded from the cortical surface in patients while awake and under propofol anesthesia. To test brain-mapping utility, slow cortical potential networks were identified with data-driven (seed-independent) and anatomy-driven (seed-based) approaches. With electrocortical stimulation used as the gold standard for comparison, the sensitivity and specificity of these networks for identifying sensorimotor cortex were calculated. RESULTS: Networks identified with a data-driven approach in patients under anesthesia and awake were 90% and 93% sensitive and 58% and 55% specific for sensorimotor cortex, respectively. Networks identified with systematic seed selection in patients under anesthesia and awake were 78% and 83% sensitive and 67% and 60% specific, respectively. CONCLUSION: Resting-state networks may be useful for tailoring stimulation mapping and could provide a means of identifying eloquent regions in patients while under anesthesia.
Authors: Michelle Hampson; Bradley S Peterson; Pawel Skudlarski; James C Gatenby; John C Gore Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Gerwin Schalk; Dennis J McFarland; Thilo Hinterberger; Niels Birbaumer; Jonathan R Wolpaw Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Mitchell M Rohde; Spencer L BeMent; Jane E Huggins; Simon P Levine; Ramesh K Kushwaha; Lori A Schuh Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: G Evren Keles; David A Lundin; Kathleen R Lamborn; Edward F Chang; George Ojemann; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Hagen Schiffbauer; Mitchel S Berger; Paul Ferrari; Dirk Freudenstein; Howard A Rowley; Timothy P L Roberts Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: S H Faro; F B Mohamed; J A Helpern; J H Jensen; K R Thulborn; I C Atkinson; H I Sair; D J Mikulis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Anthony Ritaccio; Michael Beauchamp; Conrado Bosman; Peter Brunner; Edward Chang; Nathan Crone; Aysegul Gunduz; Disha Gupta; Robert Knight; Eric Leuthardt; Brian Litt; Daniel Moran; Jeffrey Ojemann; Josef Parvizi; Nick Ramsey; Jochem Rieger; Jonathan Viventi; Bradley Voytek; Justin Williams; Gerwin Schalk Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Gayle R Salama; Linda A Heier; Praneil Patel; Rohan Ramakrishna; Rajiv Magge; Apostolos John Tsiouris Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Timothy J Mitchell; Carl D Hacker; Jonathan D Breshears; Nick P Szrama; Mohit Sharma; David T Bundy; Mrinal Pahwa; Maurizio Corbetta; Abraham Z Snyder; Joshua S Shimony; Eric C Leuthardt Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Nancy X R Wang; Jared D Olson; Jeffrey G Ojemann; Rajesh P N Rao; Bingni W Brunton Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 3.169