| Literature DB >> 23284796 |
Fritjof Norrelgen1, Anders Lilja, Martin Ingvar, Jens Gisselgård, Peter Fransson.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to develop and assess a method to map language networks in children with two auditory fMRI protocols in combination with a dichotic listening task (DL). The method is intended for pediatric patients prior to epilepsy surgery. To evaluate the potential clinical usefulness of the method we first wanted to assess data from a group of healthy children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23284796 PMCID: PMC3527442 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051872
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The criteria applied in the analysis of the fMRI data (1.), and of the dichotic listening data (2.), and the criteria used to combine these two analyses to reach a final conclusion about hemispheric language dominance (3.).
|
|
|
|
| 1a) Two or more consistent index values in one task alone or in both tasks together, and no contradictory index value(s). |
| 1b) Result as 1a, and with an additional contradictory index value not in the target region of the corresponding task (target region is the frontal lobe in the verb generation task (46) and the temporal lobe in the listening task (17). |
|
|
| 1c) No index value. |
| 1d) Only one index value. |
| 1e) Two single contradictory index values in one paradigm or between paradigms. |
| 1f) Result as in 1a, and with an additional contradictory index value located in the target region of the corresponding paradigm. |
| 1g) Result as in 1f but with 2≥ contradictory index values regardless of target region(s). |
|
|
|
|
| 2a) One index value. |
| 2b) Two consistent index values. |
|
|
| 2c) No index value or two contradictory index values. |
|
|
|
|
| 3a) Conclusive fMRI result alone (1a or 1b), or together with a consistent result from DL (2a or 2b). |
| 3b) Conclusive fMRI result (1a, but not 1b) in combination with a contradictory or inconclusive DL result (2a or 2c but not 2b). |
| 3c) Inconclusive fMRI result (1d or 1e) with an index value in the target region for the corresponding paradigm consistent with the DL result (2b). |
|
|
| 3d) Inconclusive fMRI (1c, 1f or 1g) regardless of DL result (2a, 2b or 2c). |
| 3e) fMRI result as in 1b but contradicted by one or two indices in DL. |
Group composition and means and standard deviations on the language screening tests –vocabulary and language comprehension– and on the listening- and verb generation tasks.
| School Grade | Gender | Mean age | Vocabulary test:SPIQ (staninepoints) | Language comprehension test: TROG-2 (standard scores) | Listening task: comprehension (average percent correct/passage) | Verb generation: latencies (ms) |
|
| 6 f, 4 m | 7.71 (0.24) | 4.30 (1.49) | 113.90 (5.47) | 87.17 (12.98) | 1546.55 (424.09) |
|
| 6 f, 4 m | 10.83 (0.39) | 5.40 (1.08) | 104.50 (2.84) | 89.17 (9.14) | 1229.77 (487.46) |
|
| 5 f, 5 m | 13.66 (0.47) | 3.50 (0.71) | 104.20 (5.12) | 87.83 (10.06) | 1194.79 (459.87) |
Figure 1Maximum Intensity Projections (MIP) of fMRI data for subject 1 to 17 in the verb-generation paradigm at p<0.001 uncorrected.
Spatial orientation of all projections is shown on the top row (P = posterior, A = anterior, L = left, R = right).
Figure 2Maximum Intensity Projections (MIP) of fMRI data for subject 1 to 17 in the listening paradigm at p<0.001 uncorrected.
Spatial orientation of all projections is shown on the top row (P = posterior, A = anterior, L = left, R = right).
Figure 3Results on the two language fMRI tasks and on dichotic listening for each subject.
The fMRI results on each task are based on significant BOLD signal changes in response to the task condition contrasted by the control condition.