Abbas Babajani-Feremi1, Shalini Narayana2, Roozbeh Rezaie3, Asim F Choudhri4, Stephen P Fulton5, Frederick A Boop6, James W Wheless5, Andrew C Papanicolaou2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA; Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. Electronic address: ababajan@uthsc.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA; Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA; Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 4. Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 5. Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Neurology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 6. Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare localization of the language cortex using cortical stimulation mapping (CSM), high gamma electrocorticography (hgECoG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). METHODS: Language mapping using CSM, hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS were compared in nine patients with epilepsy. Considering CSM as reference, we compared language mapping approaches based on hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS using their sensitivity, specificity, and the results of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Our results show that areas involved in language processing can be identified by hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS. The average sensitivity/specificity of hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS across all patients was 100%/85%, 50%/80%, and 67%/66%, respectively. The average area under the ROC curve of hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS across CSM-positive patients was 0.98, 0.76, and 0.68, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable concordance between CSM, hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS language mapping. Our results reveal that hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS are valuable tools for presurgical language mapping. SIGNIFICANCE: Language mapping on the basis of hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS can provide important additional information, therefore, these methods can be used in conjunction with CSM or as an alternative, when the latter is deemed impractical.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare localization of the language cortex using cortical stimulation mapping (CSM), high gamma electrocorticography (hgECoG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). METHODS: Language mapping using CSM, hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS were compared in nine patients with epilepsy. Considering CSM as reference, we compared language mapping approaches based on hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS using their sensitivity, specificity, and the results of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Our results show that areas involved in language processing can be identified by hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS. The average sensitivity/specificity of hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS across all patients was 100%/85%, 50%/80%, and 67%/66%, respectively. The average area under the ROC curve of hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS across CSM-positive patients was 0.98, 0.76, and 0.68, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable concordance between CSM, hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS language mapping. Our results reveal that hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS are valuable tools for presurgical language mapping. SIGNIFICANCE: Language mapping on the basis of hgECoG, fMRI, and TMS can provide important additional information, therefore, these methods can be used in conjunction with CSM or as an alternative, when the latter is deemed impractical.
Authors: Rachel Rolinski; Alison Austermuehle; Edythe Wiggs; Shubhi Agrawal; Leigh N Sepeta; William D Gaillard; Kareem A Zaghloul; Sara K Inati; William H Theodore Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Ravindra Arya; J Adam Wilson; Hisako Fujiwara; Leonid Rozhkov; James L Leach; Anna W Byars; Hansel M Greiner; Jennifer Vannest; Jason Buroker; Griffin Milsap; Brian Ervin; Ali Minai; Paul S Horn; Katherine D Holland; Francesco T Mangano; Nathan E Crone; Douglas F Rose Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Alison Austermuehle; John Cocjin; Richard Reynolds; Shubhi Agrawal; Leigh Sepeta; William D Gaillard; Kareem A Zaghloul; Sara Inati; William H Theodore Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Ganne Chaitanya; Walter Hinds; James Kragel; Xiaosong He; Noah Sideman; Youssef Ezzyat; Michael R Sperling; Ashwini Sharan; Joseph I Tracy Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: J R Swift; W G Coon; C Guger; P Brunner; M Bunch; T Lynch; B Frawley; A L Ritaccio; G Schalk Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.708