Adaptive Language Mapping Paradigms for Presurgical Language Mapping

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Binder JR,
   2. Swanson SJ,
   3. Hammeke TA, et al

   . A comparison of five fMRI protocols for mapping speech comprehension systems. Epilepsia 2008;49:1980–97 doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01683.x pmid:18513352

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Black DF,
   2. Vachha B,
   3. Mian A, et al

   . American Society of Functional Neuroradiology-recommended fMRI paradigm algorithms for presurgical language assessment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:E65–73 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5345 pmid:28860215

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Benjamin CF,
   2. Li AX,
   3. Blumenfeld H, et al

   . Presurgical language fMRI: clinical practices and patient outcomes in epilepsy surgical planning. Hum Brain Mapp 2018;39:2777–85 doi:10.1002/hbm.24039 pmid:29528160

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Sabsevitz DS,
   2. Swanson SJ,
   3. Hammeke TA, et al

   . Use of preoperative functional neuroimaging to predict language deficits from epilepsy surgery. Neurology 2003;60:1788–92 doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000068022.05644.01 pmid:12796532

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Janecek JK,
   2. Swanson SJ,
   3. Sabsevitz DS, et al

   . Language lateralization by fMRI and Wada testing in 229 patients with epilepsy: rates and predictors of discordance. Epilepsia 2013;54:314–22 doi:10.1111/epi.12068 pmid:23294162

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.
   1. Janecek JK,
   2. Swanson SJ,
   3. Sabsevitz DS, et al

   . Naming outcome prediction in patients with discordant Wada and fMRI language lateralization. Epilepsy Behav 2013;27:399–403 doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2013.02.030 pmid:23541860

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Szaflarski JP,
   2. Gloss D,
   3. Binder JR, et al

   . Practice guideline summary: use of fMRI in the presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy—report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2017;88:395–402 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000003532 pmid:28077494

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Giussani C,
   2. Roux FE,
   3. Ojemann J, et al

   . Is preoperative functional magnetic resonance imaging reliable for language areas mapping in brain tumor surgery? Review of language functional magnetic resonance imaging and direct cortical stimulation correlation studies. Neurosurgery 2010;66:113–20 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000360392.15450.C9 pmid:19935438

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Rutten GJ,
   2. Ramsey NF,
   3. van Rijen PC, et al

   . Development of a functional magnetic resonance imaging protocol for intraoperative localization of critical temporoparietal language areas. Ann Neurol 2002;51:350–60 doi:10.1002/ana.10117 pmid:11891830

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.
    1. Pillai JJ,
    2. Zaca D

    . Relative utility for hemispheric lateralization of different clinical fMRI activation tasks within a comprehensive language paradigm battery in brain tumor patients as assessed by both threshold-dependent and threshold-independent analysis methods. Neuroimage 2011;54(Suppl 1):S136–45 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.082 pmid:20380883

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Zaca D,
    2. Jarso S,
    3. Pillai JJ

    . Role of semantic paradigms for optimization of language mapping in clinical fMRI studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1966–71 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3628 pmid:23788599

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.
    1. Wilson SM,
    2. Bautista A,
    3. Yen M, et al

    . Validity and reliability of four language mapping paradigms. Neuroimage Clin 2017;16:399–408 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.015 pmid:28879081

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Wilson SM,
    2. Yen M,
    3. Eriksson DK

    . An adaptive semantic matching paradigm for reliable and valid language mapping in individuals with aphasia. Hum Brain Mapp 2018;39:3285–3307 doi:10.1002/hbm.24077 pmid:29665223

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.
    1. Wilson SM,
    2. Eriksson DK,
    3. Yen M, et al

    . Language mapping in aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019;62:3937–46 doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-RSNP-19-0031 pmid:31756153

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Yen M,
    2. DeMarco AT,
    3. Wilson SM

    . Adaptive paradigms for mapping phonological regions in individual participants. Neuroimage 2019;189:368–79 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.040 pmid:30665008

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Brainard DH

    . The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 1997;10:433–36 doi:10.1163/156856897X00357 pmid:9176952

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Pelli DG

    . The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 1997;10:437–42 doi:10.1163/156856897X00366 pmid:9176953

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Gross WL,
    2. Binder JR

    . Alternative thresholding methods for fMRI data optimized for surgical planning. Neuroimage 2014;84:554–61 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.066 pmid:24021837

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Tzourio-Mazoyer N,
    2. Landeau B,
    3. Papathanassiou D, et al

    . Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage 2002;15:273–89 doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0978 pmid:11771995

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Price CJ,
    2. Moore CJ,
    3. Humphreys GW, et al

    . Segregating semantic from phonological processes during reading. J Cogn Neurosci 1997;9:727–33 doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.727 pmid:23964595

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.
    1. McDermott KB,
    2. Petersen SE,
    3. Watson JM, et al

    . A procedure for identifying regions preferentially activated by attention to semantic and phonological relations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia 2003;41:293–303 doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00162-8 pmid:12457755

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.
    1. Pillay SB,
    2. Stengel BC,
    3. Humphries C, et al

    . Cerebral localization of impaired phonological retrieval during rhyme judgment. Ann Neurol 2014;76:738–46 doi:10.1002/ana.24266 pmid:25164766

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Mirman D,
    2. Chen Q,
    3. Zhang Y, et al

    . Neural organization of spoken language revealed by lesion-symptom mapping. Nat Commun 2015;6:6762 doi:10.1038/ncomms7762 pmid:25879574

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Rombouts SA,
    2. Barkhof F,
    3. Hoogenraad FG, et al

    . Test-retest analysis with functional MR of the activated area in the human visual cortex. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1317–22 pmid:9282862

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Rutten GJ,
    2. Ramsey NF,
    3. van Rijen PC, et al

    . Reproducibility of fMRI-determined language lateralization in individual subjects. Brain Lang 2002;80:421–37 doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2600 pmid:11896650

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Gaillard WD,
    2. Balsamo L,
    3. Xu B, et al

    . fMRI language task panel improves determination of language dominance. Neurology 2004;63:1403–08 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000141852.65175.a7 pmid:15505156

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Mbwana J,
    2. Berl MM,
    3. Ritzl EK, et al

    . Limitations to plasticity of language network reorganization in localization related epilepsy. Brain 2009;132:347–56 doi:10.1093/brain/awn329 pmid:19059978

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Binder JR,
    2. Sabsevitz DS,
    3. Swanson SJ, et al

    . Use of preoperative functional MRI to predict verbal memory decline after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia 2008;49:1377–94 doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01625.x pmid:18435753

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.
    1. Veale JF

    . Edinburgh Handedness Inventory-Short Form: a revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality 2014;19:164–77 doi:10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045 pmid:23659650

    CrossRefPubMed