OBJECT: Electrocorticography (ECoG) is a powerful tool for presurgical functional mapping. Power increase in the high gamma band has been observed from ECoG electrodes on the surface of the sensory motor cortex during the execution of body movements. In this study the authors aim to validate the clinical usage of high gamma activity in presurgical mapping by comparing ECoG mapping with traditional direct electrical cortical stimulation (ECS) and functional MRI (fMRI) mapping. METHODS: Seventeen patients with epilepsy participated in an ECoG motor mapping experiment. The patients executed a 5-minute hand/tongue movement task while the ECoG signal was recorded. All 17 patients also underwent extraoperative ECS mapping to localize the motor cortex. Eight patients also participated in a presurgical fMRI study. The high gamma activity on ECoG was modeled using the general linear model (GLM), and the regions showing significant gamma power increase during the task condition compared with the rest condition were localized. The maps derived from GLM-based ECoG mapping, ECS, and fMRI were then compared. RESULTS: High gamma activity in the motor cortex can be reliably modulated by motor tasks. Localization of the motor regions achieved with GLM-based ECoG mapping was consistent with the localization determined by ECS. The maps also appeared to be highly localized compared with the fMRI activations. Using the ECS findings as the reference, GLM-based ECoG mapping showed a significantly higher sensitivity than fMRI (66.7% for ECoG, 52.6% for fMRI, p<0.05), while the specificity was high for both techniques (>97%). If the current-spreading effect in ECS is accounted for, ECoG mapping may produce maps almost identical to those produced by ECS mapping (100% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: General linear model-based ECoG mapping showed a superior performance compared to traditional ECS and fMRI mapping in terms of efficiency and accuracy. Using this method, motor functions can be reliably mapped in less than 5 minutes.
OBJECT: Electrocorticography (ECoG) is a powerful tool for presurgical functional mapping. Power increase in the high gamma band has been observed from ECoG electrodes on the surface of the sensory motor cortex during the execution of body movements. In this study the authors aim to validate the clinical usage of high gamma activity in presurgical mapping by comparing ECoG mapping with traditional direct electrical cortical stimulation (ECS) and functional MRI (fMRI) mapping. METHODS: Seventeen patients with epilepsy participated in an ECoG motor mapping experiment. The patients executed a 5-minute hand/tongue movement task while the ECoG signal was recorded. All 17 patients also underwent extraoperative ECS mapping to localize the motor cortex. Eight patients also participated in a presurgical fMRI study. The high gamma activity on ECoG was modeled using the general linear model (GLM), and the regions showing significant gamma power increase during the task condition compared with the rest condition were localized. The maps derived from GLM-based ECoG mapping, ECS, and fMRI were then compared. RESULTS: High gamma activity in the motor cortex can be reliably modulated by motor tasks. Localization of the motor regions achieved with GLM-based ECoG mapping was consistent with the localization determined by ECS. The maps also appeared to be highly localized compared with the fMRI activations. Using the ECS findings as the reference, GLM-based ECoG mapping showed a significantly higher sensitivity than fMRI (66.7% for ECoG, 52.6% for fMRI, p<0.05), while the specificity was high for both techniques (>97%). If the current-spreading effect in ECS is accounted for, ECoG mapping may produce maps almost identical to those produced by ECS mapping (100% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: General linear model-based ECoG mapping showed a superior performance compared to traditional ECS and fMRI mapping in terms of efficiency and accuracy. Using this method, motor functions can be reliably mapped in less than 5 minutes.
Authors: Kai J Miller; Marcel denNijs; Pradeep Shenoy; John W Miller; Rajesh P N Rao; Jeffrey G Ojemann Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vernon L Towle; Hyun-Ah Yoon; Michael Castelle; J Christopher Edgar; Nadia M Biassou; David M Frim; Jean-Paul Spire; Michael H Kohrman Journal: Brain Date: 2008-07-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Erik C Brown; Robert Rothermel; Masaaki Nishida; Csaba Juhász; Otto Muzik; Karsten Hoechstetter; Sandeep Sood; Harry T Chugani; Eishi Asano Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Peter Brunner; Anthony L Ritaccio; Timothy M Lynch; Joseph F Emrich; J Adam Wilson; Justin C Williams; Erik J Aarnoutse; Nick F Ramsey; Eric C Leuthardt; Horst Bischof; Gerwin Schalk Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Gerwin Schalk; Eric C Leuthardt; Peter Brunner; Jeffrey G Ojemann; Lester A Gerhardt; Jonathan R Wolpaw Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 6.556
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: 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: Maxwell J Collard; Matthew S Fifer; Heather L Benz; David P McMullen; Yujing Wang; Griffin W Milsap; Anna Korzeniewska; Nathan E Crone Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Harish RaviPrakash; Milena Korostenskaja; Eduardo M Castillo; Ki H Lee; Christine M Salinas; James Baumgartner; Syed M Anwar; Concetto Spampinato; Ulas Bagci Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Danhong Wang; Randy L Buckner; Michael D Fox; Daphne J Holt; Avram J Holmes; Sophia Stoecklein; Georg Langs; Ruiqi Pan; Tianyi Qian; Kuncheng Li; Justin T Baker; Steven M Stufflebeam; Kai Wang; Xiaomin Wang; Bo Hong; Hesheng Liu Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 24.884