Clinically, idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) are defined as any combination of absence seizures, generalized tonic–clinic seizures, and myoclonus or myoclonic seizures; patients with IGEs usually have electroencephalography (EEG) showing generalized spike and wave discharges (GSWDs) and are cognitively normal. The usual presentation age is preteen or teenage years (Commission, 1989). GSWDs and seizures in IGEs are thought to originate from or involve at some point a bilaterally distributed network of cortical and subcortical areas (Bai et al., 2010; Berg et al., 2010; Szaflarski et al., 2010a). However, the origin of the GSWDs and/or seizures in patients with IGEs remains elusive, with some studies pointing to cortical and others to subcortical (i.e., thalamic) onset (Avoli, 2012; Seneviratne et al., 2012). Previously, several theories regarding the origins of GSWD and seizures in IGEs have been postulated based on animal and human data. These theories include the “centrencephalic theory” put forward by Penfield & Jasper (1954), who proposed that the onset of EEG abnormalities in IGEs is in the midline and intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus; this theory was later redefined by the “thalamic clock” theory based on the examination of cortical and thalamic ablations on high-voltage thalamic spindles (Buzsaki, 1991). The two theories of a peripheral IGE onset include “cortical” and “cortical focus” theories, which are based on the measured delays in GSWD propagation between the hemispheres, and the fact that in some animal models of IGE the leading spikes may originate around the cortical somatosensory areas (Meeren et al., 2005). Finally, the corticoreticular theory proposed by Gloor may be the cement that unifies all the above theories—it suggests that the thalamic and brainstem reticular system is responsible for the genesis of the GSWDs that are a result of or represent abnormal oscillations within the corticoreticular neurons and of interaction between cortical and thalamic neurons (Gloor, 1968). Therefore, based on these theories, the notion of cortical and subcortical involvement in the origination of GSWD in IGEs is evident. However, although all these theories are supported by ample experimental and clinical data, none of them address the question of why some patients respond to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), including valproate (VPA), which is prototypical for these patients, whereas some patients do not. Lack of seizure control in IGEs is observed in approximately 10–30% of adult patients taking AEDs (Gelisse et al., 2001; Baykan et al., 2008; Szaflarski et al., 2010b). Some of these patients continue to have seizures despite optimized therapy and management by an epilepsy specialist (Szaflarski et al., 2008). Many features of IGEs are listed as reasons for medication resistance, and include poor adherence to medication regimen, poor sleep hygiene, or other lifestyle factors called globally “pseudo-resistance,” presence of comorbid psychiatric conditions, presence of generalized tonic–clonic seizures, focal EEG features, or early epilepsy onset (Wolf & Inoue, 1984; Fernando-Dongas et al., 2000; Berg et al., 2001; Szaflarski et al., 2008; Iqbal et al., 2009). However, in many patients these or other reasons for poor seizure control cannot be identified. Overall, it has been noted that patients with IGEs tend to respond better to VPA than to other AEDs, and that response to VPA predicts a positive response to another AED (Fernando-Dongas et al., 2000; Szaflarski et al., 2010b). Therefore, VPA is considered the archetypical AED for patients with IGEs with patients’ response to this drug (or lack thereof) possibly identifying different subtypes of IGEs or even differentiating patients with IGEs from patients with other, possibly focal types of epilepsies (e.g., frontal lobe onset based on the “cortical” theory) (Meeren et al., 2005). Recently, neuroimaging studies have significantly contributed to our understanding of IGEs. Several studies combining EEG with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; EEG/fMRI) implicated thalamus or specific thalamic nuclei to be involved in GSWD generation more than the cortical regions (Moeller et al., 2008; Tyvaert et al., 2009). Other studies postulated more widespread cortical and subcortical involvement (Aghakhani et al., 2004; Gotman et al., 2005; Hamandi et al., 2006), whereas some studies even suggested that cortical involvement may precede or drive thalamic contribution to the generation of the absence seizures (Bai et al., 2010; Szaflarski et al., 2010a). None of the above studies contradict the theories discussed above, as most if not all of these studies observed interactions between cortical and thalamic activations suggesting again that large cortical and subcortical networks are involved in generation and propagation of GSWD in IGEs. But, none of the above-mentioned studies examined the difference in cortical and subcortical correlates of GSWD generators in patients with VPA-resistant compared to VPA-responsive IGEs. Therefore, in this EEG/fMRI study, we examine the neuroimaging correlates of GSWDs in drug-resistant IGE using EEG/fMRI with VPA as an archetype drug. The central focus of this study is to test the hypothesis that there is a correlation between localization of the blood oxygenation–level dependent (BOLD) signal responses to GSWDs and drug response in patients with IGEs. We hypothesized that in patients with VPA-resistant IGEs, poor seizure control is associated with nonthalamic (possibly cortical) sources of GSWD. By using EEG/fMRI to identify the generators of GSWDs in both groups of IGE patients, we investigated whether there are differences in sources of the GSWDs in patients with VPA-resistant and in VPA-responsive (possibly thalamic) IGEs.