Search

Determination of language hemispheric dominance (HD) in patients undergoing evaluation for epilepsy surgery has traditionally relied on the sodium amobarbital (Wada) test. The emergence of non-invasive methods for determining language laterality has increasingly shown to be a viable alternative. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), compared to the Wada test, in determining language HD in a sample of 12 patients. TMS-induced speech errors were classified as speech arrest, semantic, or performance errors, and the HD was based on the total number of errors in each hemisphere with equal weighting of all errors (classic) and with a higher weighting of speech arrests and semantic errors (weighted). Using MEG, HD for language was based on the spatial extent of long-latency activity sources localized to receptive language regions. Based on the classic and weighted language laterality index (LI) in 12 patients, TMS was concordant with the Wada in 58.33% and 66.67% of patients, respectively. In eight patients, MEG language mapping was deemed conclusive, with a concordance rate of 75% with the Wada test. Our results indicate that TMS and MEG have moderate and strong agreement, respectively, with the Wada test, suggesting they could be used as non-invasive substitutes.

Determination of language hemispheric dominance (HD) in patients undergoing evaluation for epilepsy surgery has traditionally relied on the sodium amobarbital (Wada) test. The emergence of non-invasive methods for determining language laterality has increasingly shown to be a viable alternative. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), compared to the Wada test, in determining language HD in a sample of 12 patients. TMS-induced speech errors were classified as speech arrest, semantic, or performance errors, and the HD was based on the total number of errors in each hemisphere with equal weighting of all errors (classic) and with a higher weighting of speech arrests and semantic errors (weighted). Using MEG, HD for language was based on the spatial extent of long-latency activity sources localized to receptive language regions. Based on the classic and weighted language laterality index (LI) in 12 patients, TMS was concordant with the Wada in 58.33% and 66.67% of patients, respectively. In eight patients, MEG language mapping was deemed conclusive, with a concordance rate of 75% with the Wada test. Our results indicate that TMS and MEG have moderate and strong agreement, respectively, with the Wada test, suggesting they could be used as non-invasive substitutes.

Preoperative language mapping with navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is currently based on the disruption of performance during object naming. The resulting cortical language maps, however, lack accuracy when compared to intraoperative mapping. The question arises whether nTMS results can be improved, when another language task is considered, involving verb retrieval in sentence context. Twenty healthy German speakers were tested with object naming and a novel action naming task during nTMS language mapping. Error rates and categories in both hemispheres were compared. Action naming showed a significantly higher error rate than object naming in both hemispheres. Error category comparison revealed that this discrepancy stems from more lexico-semantic errors during action naming, indicating lexico-semantic retrieval of the verb being more affected than noun retrieval. In an area-wise comparison, higher error rates surfaced in multiple right-hemisphere areas, but only trends in the left ventral postcentral gyrus and middle superior temporal gyrus. Hesitation errors contributed significantly to the error count, but did not dull the mapping results. Inclusion of action naming coupled with a detailed error analysis may be favorable for nTMS mapping and ultimately improve accuracy in preoperative planning. Moreover, the results stress the recruitment of both left- and right-hemispheric areas during naming.

Neurosurgery on individuals with lesions around language areas becomes even more complicated when the patient is bilingual. It is thus important to understand the principles that predict the likelihood of convergent versus separate neuroanatomical organization of the first (L1) and the second language (L2) in these individuals. We reviewed all English-language publications on neurosurgical language mapping in bilinguals before January 2020 in three databases (e.g., PubMed). Our search yielded 28 studies with 207 participants. The reviewed data suggest several principles of language organization in bilingual neurosurgical patients: (1) separate cortical areas uniquely dedicated to each language in both anterior and posterior language sites are the rule rather than occasional findings, (2) In cases where there was a convergent neuroanatomical representation for L1 and L2, two factors explained the overlap: an early age of L2 acquisition and a small linguistic distance between L1 and L2 and (3) When L1 and L2 diverged neuroanatomically, more L1-specific sites were identified for early age of L2 acquisition, high L2 proficiency and a larger linguistic distance. This work provides initial evidence-based principles predicting the likelihood of converging versus separate neural representations of L1 and L2 in neurosurgical patients.

To date, the structural characteristics that distinguish language-involved from non-involved cortical areas are largely unclear. Particularly in patients suffering from language-eloquent brain tumors, reliable mapping of the cortico-subcortical language network is of high clinical importance to prepare and guide safe tumor resection. To investigate differences in structural characteristics between language-positive and language-negative areas, 20 patients (mean age: 63.2 ± 12.9 years, 16 males) diagnosed with language-eloquent left-hemispheric glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) underwent preoperative language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) and nTMS-based diffusion tensor imaging fiber tracking (DTI FT). The number of language-positive and language-negative points as well as the gray matter intensity (GMI), normalized volumes of U-fibers, interhemispheric fibers, and fibers projecting to the cerebellum were assessed and compared between language-positive and language-negative nTMS mappings and set in correlation with aphasia grades. We found significantly lower GMI for language-positive nTMS points (5.7 ± 1.7 versus 7.1 ± 1.6, p = 0.0121). Furthermore, language-positive nTMS points were characterized by an enhanced connectivity profile, i.e., these points showed a significantly higher ratio in volumes for U-fibers (p ≤ 0.0056), interhemispheric fibers (p = 0.0494), and fibers projecting to the cerebellum (p = 0.0094). The number of language-positive nTMS points (R ≥ 0.4854, p ≤ 0.0300) as well as the ratio in volumes for U-fibers (R ≤ −0.4899, p ≤ 0.0283) were significantly associated with aphasia grades, as assessed pre- or postoperatively and during follow-up examinations. In conclusion, this study provides evidence for structural differences on cortical and subcortical levels between language-positive and language-negative areas, as detected by nTMS language mapping. The results may further increase confidence in the technique of nTMS language mapping and nTMS-based tractography in the direct clinical setting. Future studies may confirm our results in larger cohorts and may expand the findings to patients with other tumor entities than GBM.

Preoperative language mapping with navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is currently based on the disruption of performance during object naming. The resulting cortical language maps, however, lack accuracy when compared to intraoperative mapping. The question arises whether nTMS results can be improved, when another language task is considered, involving verb retrieval in sentence context. Twenty healthy German speakers were tested with object naming and a novel action naming task during nTMS language mapping. Error rates and categories in both hemispheres were compared. Action naming showed a significantly higher error rate than object naming in both hemispheres. Error category comparison revealed that this discrepancy stems from more lexico-semantic errors during action naming, indicating lexico-semantic retrieval of the verb being more affected than noun retrieval. In an area-wise comparison, higher error rates surfaced in multiple right-hemisphere areas, but only trends in the left ventral postcentral gyrus and middle superior temporal gyrus. Hesitation errors contributed significantly to the error count, but did not dull the mapping results. Inclusion of action naming coupled with a detailed error analysis may be favorable for nTMS mapping and ultimately improve accuracy in preoperative planning. Moreover, the results stress the recruitment of both left- and right-hemispheric areas during naming.

Neurosurgery on individuals with lesions around language areas becomes even more complicated when the patient is bilingual. It is thus important to understand the principles that predict the likelihood of convergent versus separate neuroanatomical organization of the first (L1) and the second language (L2) in these individuals. We reviewed all English-language publications on neurosurgical language mapping in bilinguals before January 2020 in three databases (e.g., PubMed). Our search yielded 28 studies with 207 participants. The reviewed data suggest several principles of language organization in bilingual neurosurgical patients: (1) separate cortical areas uniquely dedicated to each language in both anterior and posterior language sites are the rule rather than occasional findings, (2) In cases where there was a convergent neuroanatomical representation for L1 and L2, two factors explained the overlap: an early age of L2 acquisition and a small linguistic distance between L1 and L2 and (3) When L1 and L2 diverged neuroanatomically, more L1-specific sites were identified for early age of L2 acquisition, high L2 proficiency and a larger linguistic distance. This work provides initial evidence-based principles predicting the likelihood of converging versus separate neural representations of L1 and L2 in neurosurgical patients.

To date, the structural characteristics that distinguish language-involved from non-involved cortical areas are largely unclear. Particularly in patients suffering from language-eloquent brain tumors, reliable mapping of the cortico-subcortical language network is of high clinical importance to prepare and guide safe tumor resection. To investigate differences in structural characteristics between language-positive and language-negative areas, 20 patients (mean age: 63.2 ± 12.9 years, 16 males) diagnosed with language-eloquent left-hemispheric glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) underwent preoperative language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) and nTMS-based diffusion tensor imaging fiber tracking (DTI FT). The number of language-positive and language-negative points as well as the gray matter intensity (GMI), normalized volumes of U-fibers, interhemispheric fibers, and fibers projecting to the cerebellum were assessed and compared between language-positive and language-negative nTMS mappings and set in correlation with aphasia grades. We found significantly lower GMI for language-positive nTMS points (5.7 ± 1.7 versus 7.1 ± 1.6, p = 0.0121). Furthermore, language-positive nTMS points were characterized by an enhanced connectivity profile, i.e., these points showed a significantly higher ratio in volumes for U-fibers ( p ≤ 0.0056), interhemispheric fibers ( p = 0.0494), and fibers projecting to the cerebellum ( p = 0.0094). The number of language-positive nTMS points (R ≥ 0.4854, p ≤ 0.0300) as well as the ratio in volumes for U-fibers (R ≤ -0.4899, p ≤ 0.0283) were significantly associated with aphasia grades, as assessed pre- or postoperatively and during follow-up examinations. In conclusion, this study provides evidence for structural differences on cortical and subcortical levels between language-positive and language-negative areas, as detected by nTMS language mapping. The results may further increase confidence in the technique of nTMS language mapping and nTMS-based tractography in the direct clinical setting. Future studies may confirm our results in larger cohorts and may expand the findings to patients with other tumor entities than GBM.