A novel approach for documenting naming errors induced by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation

Lioumis, Pantelis; Zhdanov, Andrey; Mäkelä, Niko; Lehtinen, Henri; Wilenius, Juha; Neuvonen, Tuomas; Hannula, Henri; Deletis, Vedran; Picht, Thomas; Mäkelä, Jyrki P.

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.11.003

Cited by 131 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…34 This RMT was then used as a basic value for the rTMS mapping procedure, using an object-naming task, consisting of 131 colored pictures of common objects. 40,51,68 The pictures were displayed with an interpicture interval (IPI) of Table 2 for the definitions of lesion locations. † Aphasia grading: 0 = no aphasia; 1 = mild aphasia; 2 = moderate aphasia; 3 = severe aphasia; A = predominantly motor impairment; B = predominantly sensory impairment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining pictures were presented time locked to a train of rTMS pulses, and the stimulation coil was randomly moved in between the visual display of 2 images. To achieve maximum field induction, the coil was placed perpendicular to the skull, 40 and 80-120 sites were stimulated 3 times each with a distance of approximately 10 mm. The minimum cortical field strength of the induced electric field was 55 V/m.…”

Section: Tms Language-mapping Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…37,40,51 After the video analysis, the detected language errors sorted by error type were assigned to the cortical parcellation system (CPS) as published by Corina et al 8 Figure 1A shows the CPS, including the abbreviations of the mapped cortical regions. The abbreviations are further explained in Table 2.…”

Section: Tms Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22,33,35,52,53,77 Furthermore, repetitive navigated TMS (rTMS) and nonnavigated TMS are able to localize cortical language function. 18,19,40,48,69,80 Its clinical applicability and correlation to DCS during awake surgery have repeatedly been shown as well. 36,37,51,68,75 Although rTMS language mapping has already experienced some improvement, 40 the standard for preoperative, noninvasive language mapping remains functional MRI (fMRI).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…18,19,40,48,69,80 Its clinical applicability and correlation to DCS during awake surgery have repeatedly been shown as well. 36,37,51,68,75 Although rTMS language mapping has already experienced some improvement, 40 the standard for preoperative, noninvasive language mapping remains functional MRI (fMRI). 21 Yet this technique, though well established, has failed to provide reliable preoperative language mapping, showing only minor correlation with intraoperative DCS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation

Ille

Sollmann

Hauck

et al. 2015

JNS

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he resection of tumors within or adjacent to language-eloquent brain regions is still a neurosurgical quest, and a profound presurgical workup is crucial to achieving the best functional and oncological result. 6,71 Today, the most precise way to localize individual language-eloquent regions is direct cortical stimulation (DCS) during awake craniotomy. 9,12,26,44,45,54,62,65,74 Using only DCS, however, we cannot provide the longitudinal abbreviatioNs BOLD = blood oxygen level-dependent; CPS = cortical parcellation system; DCS direct cortical stimulation; ER = error rate; ERT error rate threshold; fMRI = functional MRI; IPI = interpicture interval; NPV = negative predictive value; nTMS navigated TMS; PPV = positive predictive value; PTI = picture-to-trigger interval; RMT = resting motor threshold; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; rTMS repetitive navigated TMS; TMS = transcranial magnetic stimulation. obJect Repetitive navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now increasingly used for preoperative language mapping in patients with lesions in language-related areas of the brain. Yet its correlation with intraoperative direct cortical stimulation (DCS) has to be improved. To increase rTMS's specificity and positive predictive value, the authors aim to provide thresholds for rTMS's positive language areas. Moreover, they propose a protocol for combining rTMS with functional MRI (fMRI) to combine the strength of both methods. methods The authors performed multimodal language mapping in 35 patients with left-sided perisylvian lesions by using rTMS, fMRI, and DCS. The rTMS mappings were conducted with a picture-to-trigger interval (PTI, time between stimulus presentation and stimulation onset) of either 0 or 300 msec. The error rates (ERs; that is, the number of errors per number of stimulations) were calculated for each region of the cortical parcellation system (CPS). Subsequently, the rTMS mappings were analyzed through different error rate thresholds (ERT; that is, the ER at which a CPS region was defined as language positive in terms of rTMS), and the 2-out-of-3 rule (a stimulation site was defined as language positive in terms of rTMS if at least 2 out of 3 stimulations caused an error). As a second step, the authors combined the results of fMRI and rTMS in a predefined protocol of combined noninvasive mapping. To validate this noninvasive protocol, they correlated its results to DCS during awake surgery. results The analysis by different rTMS ERTs obtained the highest correlation regarding sensitivity and a low rate of false positives for the ERTs of 15%, 20%, 25%, and the 2-out-of-3 rule. However, when comparing the combined fMRI and rTMS results with DCS, the authors observed an overall specificity of 83%, a positive predictive value of 51%, a sensitivity of 98%, and a negative predictive value of 95%. coNclusioNs In comparison with fMRI, rTMS is a more sensitive but less specific tool for preoperative language mapping than DCS. Moreover, rTMS is most reliable when using ERTs of 15%, 20...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tms Language-mapping Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tms Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation

Ille

Sollmann

Hauck

et al. 2015

JNS

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improving the efficacy and reliability of rTMS language mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency

Nettekoven

Pieczewski

Neuschmelting

et al. 2021

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetitive TMS (rTMS) with a frequency of 5–10 Hz is widely used for language mapping. However, it may be accompanied by discomfort and is limited in the number and reliability of evoked language errors. We, here, systematically tested the influence of different stimulation frequencies (i.e., 10, 30, and 50 Hz) on tolerability, number, reliability, and cortical distribution of language errors aiming at improved language mapping. 15 right‐handed, healthy subjects (m = 8, median age: 29 yrs) were investigated in two sessions, separated by 2–5 days. In each session, 10, 30, and 50 Hz rTMS were applied over the left hemisphere in a randomized order during a picture naming task. Overall, 30 Hz rTMS evoked significantly more errors (20 ± 12%) compared to 50 Hz (12 ± 8%; p <.01), whereas error rates were comparable between 30/50 and 10 Hz (18 ± 11%). Across all conditions, a significantly higher error rate was found in Session 1 (19 ± 13%) compared to Session 2 (13 ± 7%, p <.05). The error rate was poorly reliable between sessions for 10 (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = .315) and 30 Hz (ICC = .427), whereas 50 Hz showed a moderate reliability (ICC = .597). Spatial reliability of language errors was low to moderate with a tendency toward increased reliability for higher frequencies, for example, within frontal regions. Compared to 10 Hz, both, 30 and 50 Hz were rated as less painful. Taken together, our data favor the use of rTMS‐protocols employing higher frequencies for evoking language errors reliably and with reduced discomfort, depending on the region of interest.

show abstract

Speech Mapping with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Tarapore

2014

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A novel approach for documenting naming errors induced by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation

Cited by 131 publications

References 25 publications

Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation

Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation

Improving the efficacy and reliability of rTMS language mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency

Speech Mapping with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About