OBJECTIVE: Assessment of language dominance using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a standard tool to estimate the risk of language function decline after epilepsy surgery. Although there has been considerable research in the characterization of language networks in bilingual individuals; little is known about the clinical usefulness of language mapping in a secondary language in patients with epilepsy, and how language lateralization assessed by fMRI may differ by the use of native or a secondary language paradigms. In this study we investigate language representation in a population of nonnative English speakers to assess differences in fMRI language lateralization between the first (native) and second language (English). METHODS: Sixteen nonnative English-speaking patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy underwent language fMRI in their first (native) language (L1) and in English (L2). Differences between language maps using L1 and L2 paradigms were examined at the single subject level by comparing within-subject lateralization indexes obtained for each language. Differences at the group level were examined for each of the tasks and languages. RESULTS: Group maps for the second language (English) showed overlapping areas of activation with the native language, but with larger clusters, and more bilaterally distributed than for the first language. However, at the individual level, lateralization indexes were concordant between the two languages, except for one patient with bilateral hippocampal sclerosis who was left dominant in English and showed bilateral dominance for verb generation and right dominance for verbal fluency in his native tongue. SIGNIFICANCE: Language lateralization can generally be reliably derived from fMRI tasks in a second language provided that the subject can follow the task. Subjects with greater likelihood of atypical language representation should be evaluated more carefully, using more than one language paradigm. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of language dominance using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a standard tool to estimate the risk of language function decline after epilepsy surgery. Although there has been considerable research in the characterization of language networks in bilingual individuals; little is known about the clinical usefulness of language mapping in a secondary language in patients with epilepsy, and how language lateralization assessed by fMRI may differ by the use of native or a secondary language paradigms. In this study we investigate language representation in a population of nonnative English speakers to assess differences in fMRI language lateralization between the first (native) and second language (English). METHODS: Sixteen nonnative English-speaking patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy underwent language fMRI in their first (native) language (L1) and in English (L2). Differences between language maps using L1 and L2 paradigms were examined at the single subject level by comparing within-subject lateralization indexes obtained for each language. Differences at the group level were examined for each of the tasks and languages. RESULTS: Group maps for the second language (English) showed overlapping areas of activation with the native language, but with larger clusters, and more bilaterally distributed than for the first language. However, at the individual level, lateralization indexes were concordant between the two languages, except for one patient with bilateral hippocampal sclerosis who was left dominant in English and showed bilateral dominance for verb generation and right dominance for verbal fluency in his native tongue. SIGNIFICANCE: Language lateralization can generally be reliably derived from fMRI tasks in a second language provided that the subject can follow the task. Subjects with greater likelihood of atypical language representation should be evaluated more carefully, using more than one language paradigm. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Dorothy V M Bishop; Clara R Grabitz; Sophie C Harte; Kate E Watkins; Miho Sasaki; Eva Gutierrez-Sigut; Mairéad MacSweeney; Zoe V J Woodhead; Heather Payne Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2021-07-28
Authors: Alena Stasenko; Adam Schadler; Erik Kaestner; Anny Reyes; Mirella Díaz-Santos; Monika Połczyńska; Carrie R McDonald Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: José M Soares; Ricardo Magalhães; Pedro S Moreira; Alexandre Sousa; Edward Ganz; Adriana Sampaio; Victor Alves; Paulo Marques; Nuno Sousa Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Lorenzo Caciagli; Britta Wandschneider; Fenglai Xiao; Christian Vollmar; Maria Centeno; Sjoerd B Vos; Karin Trimmel; Meneka K Sidhu; Pamela J Thompson; Gavin P Winston; John S Duncan; Matthias J Koepp Journal: Brain Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Fenglai Xiao; Lorenzo Caciagli; Britta Wandschneider; Josemir W Sander; Meneka Sidhu; Gavin Winston; Jane Burdett; Karin Trimmel; Andrea Hill; Christian Vollmar; Sjoerd B Vos; Sebastien Ourselin; Pamela J Thompson; Dong Zhou; John S Duncan; Matthias J Koepp Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 5.864