Language Lateralization Represented by Spatiotemporal Mapping of Magnetoencephalography

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Dion JE,
   2. Gates PC,
   3. Fox AJ,
   4. et al

   . Clinical events following neuroangiography: a prospective study. Stroke 1987;18:997–1004

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Snyder PJ,
   2. Harris LJ

   . The intracarotid amobarbital procedure: an historical perspective. Brain Cogn 1997;33:18–32

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. de Paola L,
   2. Mader MJ,
   3. Germiniani FM,
   4. et al

   . Bizarre behavior during intracarotid sodium amytal testing (WADA test): are they predictable? Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2004;62:444–48

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Simos PG,
   2. Breier JI,
   3. Zouridakis G,
   4. et al

   . Assessment of functional cerebral laterality for language using magnetoencephalography. J Clin Neurophysiol 1998;15:364–72

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Papanicolaou AC,
   2. Simos PG,
   3. Breier JI,
   4. et al

   . Magnetoencephalographic mapping of the language-specific cortex. J Neurosurg 1999;90:85–93

   PubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Breier JI,
   2. Simos PG,
   3. Zouridakis G,
   4. et al

   . Lateralization of cerebral activation in auditory verbal and non-verbal memory tasks using magnetoencephalography. Brain Topogr 1999;12:89–97

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Kamada K,
   2. Sawamura Y,
   3. Takeuchi F,
   4. et al

   . Expressive and receptive language areas determined by a non-invasive reliable method using functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography. Neurosurgery 2007;60:296–305

   PubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Papanicolaou AC,
   2. Simos PG,
   3. Castillo EM,
   4. et al

   . Magnetocephalography: a noninvasive alternative to the Wada procedure. J Neurosurg 2004;100:867–76

   PubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Merrifield WS,
   2. Simos PG,
   3. Papanicolaou AC,
   4. et al

   . Hemispheric language dominance in magnetoencephalography: sensitivity, specificity, and data reduction techniques. Epilepsy Behav 2007;10:120–28

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Kobayashi K,
    2. Yoshinaga H,
    3. Ohtsuka Y,
    4. et al

    . Dipole modeling of epileptic spikes can be accurate or misleading. Epilepsia 2005;46:397–408

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Tanaka N,
    2. Cole AJ,
    3. von Pechmann D,
    4. et al

    . Dynamic statistical parametric mapping for analyzing ictal magnetoencephalographic spikes in patients with intractable frontal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 2009;85:279–86

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Hämäläinen MS,
    2. Ilmoniemi RJ

    . Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates. Med Biol Eng Comput 1994;32:35–42

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Dale AM,
    2. Liu AK,
    3. Fischl BR,
    4. et al

    . Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron 2000;26:55–67

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Bowyer SM,
    2. Moran JE,
    3. Weiland BJ,
    4. et al

    . Language laterality determined by MEG mapping with MR-FOCUSS. Epilepsy Behav 2005;6:235–41

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. McDonald CR,
    2. Thesen T,
    3. Hagler DJ Jr..,
    4. et al

    . Distributed source modeling of language with magnetoencephalography: application to patients with intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia 2009;50:2256–66

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Dale AM,
    2. Fischl B,
    3. Sereno MI

    . Cortical surface-based analysis. I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 1999;9:179–94

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Fischl B,
    2. Sereno MI,
    3. Dale AM

    . Cortical surface-based analysis. II: Inflation, flattening, and a surface-based coordinate system. Neuroimage 1999;9:195–207

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Taulu S,
    2. Kajola M,
    3. Simola J

    . Suppression of interference and artifacts by the signal space separation method. Brain Topogr 2004;16:269–75

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Taulu S,
    2. Simola J

    . Spatiotemporal signal space separation method for rejecting nearby interference in MEG measurements. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:1759–68

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Dale AM,
    2. Sereno MI

    . Improved localization of cortical activity by combining EEG and MEG with MRI cortical surface reconstruction: a linear approach. J Cogn Neurosci 1993;5:162–76

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Hämäläinen MS,
    2. Sarvas J

    . Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1989;36:165–71

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Oostendorp TF,
    2. van Oosterom A

    . Source parameter estimation in inhomogeneous volume conductors of arbitrary shape. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1989;36:382–91

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Crouzeix A,
    2. Yvert B,
    3. Bertrand O,
    4. et al

    . An evaluation of dipole reconstruction accuracy with spherical head model and realistic head models in MEG. Clin Neurophysiol 1999;110:2176–88

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Fuchs M,
    2. Wagner M,
    3. Kastner J

    . Boundary element method volume conductor models for EEG source reconstruction. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112:1400–07

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Tarkiainen A,
    2. Liljeström M,
    3. Seppä M,
    4. et al

    . The 3D topography of MEG source localization accuracy: effects of conductor model and noise. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114:1977–92

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. de Jongh A,
    2. de Munck JC,
    3. Gonçalves SI,
    4. et al

    . Differences in MEG/EEG epileptic spike yields explained by regional differences in signal-to-noise ratios. J Clin Neurophysiol 2005;22:153–58

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Démonet JF,
    2. Thierry G,
    3. Cardebat D

    . Renewal of the neurophysiology of language: functional neuroimaging. Physiol Rev 2005;85:49–95

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Stufflebeam SM

    . Clinical magnetoencephalography for neurosurgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2011;22:153–67

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Binder JR,
    2. Westbury CF,
    3. McKiernan KA,
    4. et al

    . Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. J Cogn Neurosci 2005;17:905–17

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Knecht S,
    2. Dräger B,
    3. Deppe M,
    4. et al

    . Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain 2000;123:2512–18

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Simos PG,
    2. Sarkari S,
    3. Castillo EM,
    4. et al

    . Reproducibility of measures of neurophysiological activity in Wernicke's area: a magnetic source imaging study. Clin Neurophysiol 2005;116:2381–91

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Papanicolaou AC,
    2. Pazo-Alvarez P,
    3. Castillo EM,
    4. et al

    . Functional neuroimaging with MEG: normative language profiles. Neuroimage 2006;33:326–42

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Passaro AD,
    2. Rezaie R,
    3. Moser DC,
    4. et al

    . Optimizing estimation of hemispheric dominance for language using magnetic source imaging. Brain Res 2011;1416:44–50

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Doss RC,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Risse GL,
    4. et al

    . Lateralizing language with magnetic source imaging: validation based on the Wada test. Epilepsia 2009;50:2242–48

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Hirata M,
    2. Goto T,
    3. Barnes G,
    4. et al

    . Language dominance and mapping based on neuromagnetic oscillatory changes: comparison with invasive procedures. J Neurosurg 2010;112:528–38

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Binder JR,
    2. Swanson SJ,
    3. Hammeke TA,
    4. et al

    . Determination of language dominance using functional MRI: a comparison with the Wada test. Neurology 1996;46:978–84

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Binder JR,
    2. Swanson SJ,
    3. Hammeke TA,
    4. et al

    . A comparison of five fMRI protocols for mapping speech comprehension systems. Epilepsia 2008;49:1980–97

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Suarez RO,
    2. Whalen S,
    3. Nelson AP,
    4. et al

    . Threshold-independent functional MRI determination of language dominance: a validation study against clinical gold standards. Epilepsy Behav 2009;16:288–97

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Pang EW,
    2. Wang F,
    3. Malone M,
    4. et al

    . Localization of Broca's area using verb generation tasks in the MEG: validation against fMRI. Neurosci Lett 2011;490:215–19

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Thesen T,
    2. Quinn BT,
    3. Carlson C,
    4. et al

    . Detection of epileptogenic cortical malformations with surface-based MRI morphometry. PLoS One 2011;6:e16430

    CrossRefPubMed