2002
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-002-0782-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of hemisphere dominance for language: comparison of frontal and temporal fMRI activation with intracarotid amytal testing

Abstract: The reliability of frontal and temporal fMRI activations for the determination of hemisphere language dominance was evaluated in comparison with intracarotid amytal testing (IAT). Twenty-two patients were studied by IAT (bilateral in 13, unilateral in 9 patients) and fMRI using a paradigm requiring semantic decisions. Global and regional (frontal and temporoparietal) lateralisation indices (LI) were calculated from the number of activated (r>0.4) voxels in both hemispheres. Frontolateral activations associated… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

3
66
1
3

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 118 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
3
66
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The fMRI-determined lateralization index (LI) has been shown to correlate with some versions of dichotic listening (Fernandes et al, 2006;Fontoura et al, 2008; Van den Noort et al, 2008). More convincingly, both dichotic listening (Strauss et al, 1987;Hugdahl et al, 1997;Fontoura et al, 2008) and fMRI-LI tests (Desmond et al, 1995;Yetkin et al, 1995;Spreer et al, 2002, Fontoura et al, 2008 repeatedly show a correlation with Wada test results. However, fMRI-LIs are influenced by task choice (Lee et al, 2008) and are more robust when measured in regions of interest (ROIs) rather than when derived from a whole-brain index calculation (Spreer et al, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The fMRI-determined lateralization index (LI) has been shown to correlate with some versions of dichotic listening (Fernandes et al, 2006;Fontoura et al, 2008; Van den Noort et al, 2008). More convincingly, both dichotic listening (Strauss et al, 1987;Hugdahl et al, 1997;Fontoura et al, 2008) and fMRI-LI tests (Desmond et al, 1995;Yetkin et al, 1995;Spreer et al, 2002, Fontoura et al, 2008 repeatedly show a correlation with Wada test results. However, fMRI-LIs are influenced by task choice (Lee et al, 2008) and are more robust when measured in regions of interest (ROIs) rather than when derived from a whole-brain index calculation (Spreer et al, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…More convincingly, both dichotic listening (Strauss et al, 1987;Hugdahl et al, 1997;Fontoura et al, 2008) and fMRI-LI tests (Desmond et al, 1995;Yetkin et al, 1995;Spreer et al, 2002, Fontoura et al, 2008 repeatedly show a correlation with Wada test results. However, fMRI-LIs are influenced by task choice (Lee et al, 2008) and are more robust when measured in regions of interest (ROIs) rather than when derived from a whole-brain index calculation (Spreer et al, 2002). In their study on language lateralization, Szaflarski and colleagues (2002) point out that fMRI-LIs depend on the locations from which the laterality is derived.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In recent years, several studies have compared fMRI and the IAP with respect to language lateralization, or evaluated the ability of fMRI to localize language functions in children and adults with epilepsy [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. These and other authors used various language fMRI tasks including semantic decision [14,16,21,[25][26][27], verb generation/verbal fluency [13,19,20,23,[28][29][30], word generation [15,18,22,24], and sentence reading [17,31].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These and other authors used various language fMRI tasks including semantic decision [14,16,21,[25][26][27], verb generation/verbal fluency [13,19,20,23,[28][29][30], word generation [15,18,22,24], and sentence reading [17,31]. Some studies have also reported the use of more than one fMRI paradigm for language localization and lateralization [10,12,13,29,32,33], but the results of these studies have been mixed, with some tasks showing good and some poor correlation with the results of IAP.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Until now, extremely good correlations have been published between fMRI and the IAP, especially for epilepsy patients with a typical (i.e. left dominant) language representation (Binder et al, 1996;Yetkin et al, 1998;Lehéricy et al, 2000;Rutten et al, 2002a,b;Spreer et al, 2002;Adcock et al, 2003;Woermann et al, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%