Domenico Zacà1, Joshua P Nickerson, Gerard Deib, Jay J Pillai. 1. Division of Neuroradiology, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine & The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Phipps B-100, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Blood oxygen level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has demonstrated its capability to provide comparable results to gold standard intracarotid sodium amobarbital (Wada) testing for preoperative determination of language hemispheric dominance. However, thus far, no consensus has been established regarding which fMRI paradigms are the most effective for the determination of hemispheric language lateralization in specific categories of patients and specific regions of interest (ROIs). METHODS: Forty-one brain tumor patients who performed four different language tasks-rhyming (R), silent word generation (SWG) sentence completion, and sentence listening comprehension (LC)-for presurgical language mapping by fMRI were included in this study. A statistical threshold-independent lateralization index (LI) was calculated and compared among the paradigms in four different ROIs for language activation: functional Broca's (BA) and Wernicke's areas (WA) as well as larger anatomically defined expressive (EA) and receptive (RA) areas. RESULTS: The two expressive paradigms evaluated in this study are very good lateralizing tasks in expressive language areas; specifically, a significantly higher mean LI value was noted for SWG (0.36 ± 0.25) compared to LC (0.16 ± 0.24, p = 0.009) and for R (0.40 ± 0.22) compared to LC (0.16 ± 0.24, p = 0.001) in BA. SWG LI (0.28 ± 0.19) was higher than LC LI (0.12 ± 0.16, p = 0.01) also in EA. No significant differences in LI were found among these paradigms in WA or RA. CONCLUSIONS: SWG and R are sufficient for the determination of lateralization in expressive language areas, whereas new semantic or receptive paradigms need to be designed for an improved assessment of lateralization in receptive language areas.
INTRODUCTION: Blood oxygen level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has demonstrated its capability to provide comparable results to gold standard intracarotid sodium amobarbital (Wada) testing for preoperative determination of language hemispheric dominance. However, thus far, no consensus has been established regarding which fMRI paradigms are the most effective for the determination of hemispheric language lateralization in specific categories of patients and specific regions of interest (ROIs). METHODS: Forty-one brain tumorpatients who performed four different language tasks-rhyming (R), silent word generation (SWG) sentence completion, and sentence listening comprehension (LC)-for presurgical language mapping by fMRI were included in this study. A statistical threshold-independent lateralization index (LI) was calculated and compared among the paradigms in four different ROIs for language activation: functional Broca's (BA) and Wernicke's areas (WA) as well as larger anatomically defined expressive (EA) and receptive (RA) areas. RESULTS: The two expressive paradigms evaluated in this study are very good lateralizing tasks in expressive language areas; specifically, a significantly higher mean LI value was noted for SWG (0.36 ± 0.25) compared to LC (0.16 ± 0.24, p = 0.009) and for R (0.40 ± 0.22) compared to LC (0.16 ± 0.24, p = 0.001) in BA. SWG LI (0.28 ± 0.19) was higher than LC LI (0.12 ± 0.16, p = 0.01) also in EA. No significant differences in LI were found among these paradigms in WA or RA. CONCLUSIONS: SWG and R are sufficient for the determination of lateralization in expressive language areas, whereas new semantic or receptive paradigms need to be designed for an improved assessment of lateralization in receptive language areas.
Authors: M I Ruge; J Victor; S Hosain; D D Correa; N R Relkin; V Tabar; C Brennan; P H Gutin; J Hirsch Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 1999 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: Dorothee Saur; Björn W Kreher; Susanne Schnell; Dorothee Kümmerer; Philipp Kellmeyer; Magnus-Sebastian Vry; Roza Umarova; Mariacristina Musso; Volkmar Glauche; Stefanie Abel; Walter Huber; Michel Rijntjes; Jürgen Hennig; Cornelius Weiller Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Daniel M Branco; Ralph O Suarez; Stephen Whalen; James P O'Shea; Aaron P Nelson; Jaderson C da Costa; Alexandra J Golby Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-06-13 Impact factor: 6.556
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: Haris I Sair; Noushin Yahyavi-Firouz-Abadi; Vince D Calhoun; Raag D Airan; Shruti Agarwal; Jarunee Intrapiromkul; Ann S Choe; Sachin K Gujar; Brian Caffo; Martin A Lindquist; Jay J Pillai Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Bornali Kundu; Amy Penwarden; Joel M Wood; Thomas A Gallagher; Matthew J Andreoli; Jed Voss; Timothy Meier; Veena A Nair; John S Kuo; Aaron S Field; Chad Moritz; M Elizabeth Meyerand; Vivek Prabhakaran Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Prashin Unadkat; Luca Fumagalli; Laura Rigolo; Mark G Vangel; Geoffrey S Young; Raymond Huang; Srinivasan Mukundan; Alexandra Golby; Yanmei Tie Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.486