AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022
Adaptive Language Mapping Paradigms for Presurgical Language Mapping.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diachek E, Morgan V L, Wilson S M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional MR imaging is widely used for preoperative language assessment in candidates for resective neurosurgery. Language mapping paradigms that are adaptive to participant performance have the potential to engage the language network more robustly and consistently, resulting in more accurate functional maps. The aim of the current study was to compare two adaptive paradigms with the recommended language mapping paradigms that constitute the current standard of care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients undergoing fMRI for language lateralization and/or localization completed an adaptive semantic matching paradigm, an adaptive phonological judgment paradigm, and two standard paradigms: sentence completion and word generation. The paradigms were compared in terms of the degree to which they yielded lateralized language maps and the extent of activation in frontal, temporal, and parietal language regions.
RESULTS: The adaptive semantic paradigm resulted in the most strongly lateralized activation maps, the greatest extent of frontal and temporal activations, and the greatest proportion of overall satisfactory language maps. The adaptive phonological paradigm identified anterior inferior parietal phonological encoding regions in most patients, unlike any of the other paradigms.
CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive language mapping paradigms investigated have several psychometric advantages compared with currently recommended paradigms. Adoption of these paradigms could increase the likelihood of obtaining satisfactory language maps in each individual patient.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients undergoing fMRI for language lateralization and/or localization completed an adaptive semantic matching paradigm, an adaptive phonological judgment paradigm, and two standard paradigms: sentence completion and word generation. The paradigms were compared in terms of the degree to which they yielded lateralized language maps and the extent of activation in frontal, temporal, and parietal language regions.
RESULTS: The adaptive semantic paradigm resulted in the most strongly lateralized activation maps, the greatest extent of frontal and temporal activations, and the greatest proportion of overall satisfactory language maps. The adaptive phonological paradigm identified anterior inferior parietal phonological encoding regions in most patients, unlike any of the other paradigms.
CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive language mapping paradigms investigated have several psychometric advantages compared with currently recommended paradigms. Adoption of these paradigms could increase the likelihood of obtaining satisfactory language maps in each individual patient.