Dipole Source Analysis of Laser-Evoked Subdural Potentials Recorded From Parasylvian Cortex in Humans

2003 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 3051-3060 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagen Vogel ◽  
John D. Port ◽  
Fred A. Lenz ◽  
Meiyappan Solaiyappan ◽  
Greg Krauss ◽  
...  

The location of the human nociceptive area(s) near the Sylvian fissure is still controversial in spite of evidence from imaging and evoked potential studies that noxious heat stimuli activate somatosensory areas in that region. Some studies have suggested the secondary somatosensory cortex (SII) on the upper bank of the Sylvian fissure posterior to the central sulcus, others the anterior insula or parietal area 7b. In this study, we applied dipole source analysis techniques to laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) that were recorded from subdural grid electrodes in three patients. As a functional marker, auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) with a generator on the opposite bank of the Sylvian fissure were recorded from the same electrodes. The LEP global field power (GFP), a measure of spatial variance, showed a first peak at about 150 ms latency, corresponding to the latency of the N1 recorded from the scalp. In contrast to scalp recordings, the amplitude of the first GFP peak recorded from the grid was larger than the second peak (P2). This finding suggests that the generator of N1, but not that of later LEP components, was close to the subdural grids. When a regional source was fitted to the first GFP peak, its location was within the frontoparietal operculum in all patients. On average, the LEP source was 13 mm anterior, 6 mm superior, and 2 mm medial of the AEP source. This relative location also suggests a source within the frontoparietal operculum overlying the insula. At the latency of the first GFP peak, source orientation pointed inward, suggesting a generator within the inner vertical surface of the operculum. Somatotopy was assessed in one patient and was consistent with that of the projection area of the presumed nociceptive thalamic nucleus posterior part of the ventromedial nucleus, but differed from that of SII. These findings suggest that the nociceptive area in human parasylvian cortex that is activated most rapidly by noxious heat pulses may be separate from the tactile SII area.

1998 ◽  
Vol 30 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 216
Author(s):  
T. Locatellil ◽  
P. Ravazzani ◽  
S. Medaglini ◽  
M. Cursil ◽  
F. Grandori ◽  
...  

1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 336-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Scherg ◽  
Jiri Vajsar ◽  
Terence W. Picton

The intracerebral generators of the human auditory evoked potentials were estimated using dipole source analysis of 14-channel scalp recordings. The response to a 400-msec toneburst presented every 0.9 sec could be explained by three major dipole sources in each temporal lobe. The first was a vertically oriented dipole located on the supratemporal plane in or near the auditory koniocortex. This contributed to the scalp-recorded N1 wave at 100 msec. The second was a vertically oriented dipole source located on the supratemporal plane somewhat anterior to the first. This contributed to both the Nl and the sustained potential (SP). The third was a laterally oriented dipole source that perhaps originated in the magnopyramidal temporal field. This contributed a negative wave to the lateral scalp recordings at the latency of 145 msec. A change in the frequency of the toneburst elicited an additional negativity in the scalp-recording —the mismatch negativity (MMN). When the frequency change was large, the mismatch negativity was composed of two distinct sources with sequential but partially overlapping activities. The earlier corresponded to the Nl dipole sources and the later to a more anteriorly located dipole with an orientation more lateral than Nl. Only the later source was active when the frequency change was small. MMN source activities peaked about 15 msec earlier in the contralateral hemisphere, while this difference was only 4 msec for the sources of the Nl.


1994 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 849-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Buchner ◽  
Ludwig Adams ◽  
Achim Knepper ◽  
Rainer Rüger ◽  
Gabriel Laborde ◽  
...  

✓ Surgery of lesions within or close to the central area of the brain always carries the risk of iatrogenic motor or sensory deficits. Functional localization by means of intraoperative direct stimulation of the motor area or by recording somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP's) from the surface of the somatosensory cortex is believed to reduce the operative risk. The authors introduce the combination of dipole source analysis of scalp-recorded SSEP's with three-dimensional (3-D) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging as a tool for preoperative localization of the central sulcus. This provides information on both functional and structural localization for preoperative planning. Four repeated measurements of right and left median nerve SSEP's were obtained from 20 subjects. Dipole source analysis showed a retest reliability of the 3-D localization error of 2.9 ± 2.0 mm. Compared to the MR evaluation, dipole source analysis was found to mark the central sulcus within 3 mm for 15 conditions (subjects × side of stimulation), while the 3-D MR measurement was accurate to within 6 mm for 10 conditions and 9 mm for 14 conditions. Dipole locations were confirmed in six patients who underwent surgery of the central region. With respect to this application, dipole source analysis combined with 3-D MR imaging appears to be a valuable tool for preoperative functional localization. The accuracy in localization will be further improved when realistic head models become available that can take into account individual head geometry. Further development of the proposed new method holds promise that evoked potentials and electroencephalography will gain greater use in presurgical functional localization.


2013 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Magezi ◽  
Karin A. Buetler ◽  
Leila Chouiter ◽  
Jean-Marie Annoni ◽  
Lucas Spierer

Following prolonged exposure to adaptor sounds moving in a single direction, participants may perceive stationary-probe sounds as moving in the opposite direction [direction-selective auditory motion aftereffect (aMAE)] and be less sensitive to motion of any probe sounds that are actually moving (motion-sensitive aMAE). The neural mechanisms of aMAEs, and notably whether they are due to adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors, as found in vision, is presently unknown and would provide critical insight into auditory motion processing. We measured human behavioral responses and auditory evoked potentials to probe sounds following four types of moving-adaptor sounds: leftward and rightward unidirectional, bidirectional, and stationary. Behavioral data replicated both direction-selective and motion-sensitive aMAEs. Electrical neuroimaging analyses of auditory evoked potentials to stationary probes revealed no significant difference in either global field power (GFP) or scalp topography between leftward and rightward conditions, suggesting that aMAEs are not based on adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors. By contrast, the bidirectional and stationary conditions differed significantly in the stationary-probe GFP at 200 ms poststimulus onset without concomitant topographic modulation, indicative of a difference in the response strength between statistically indistinguishable intracranial generators. The magnitude of this GFP difference was positively correlated with the magnitude of the motion-sensitive aMAE, supporting the functional relevance of the neurophysiological measures. Electrical source estimations revealed that the GFP difference followed from a modulation of activity in predominantly right hemisphere frontal-temporal-parietal brain regions previously implicated in auditory motion processing. Our collective results suggest that auditory motion processing relies on motion-sensitive, but, in contrast to vision, non-direction-selective mechanisms.


NeuroImage ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keiichiro Toma ◽  
Takahiro Matsuoka ◽  
Ilka Immisch ◽  
Tatsuya Mima ◽  
Daniel Waldvogel ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuezhi Li ◽  
Yong Hu ◽  
Tiebang Liu ◽  
Dongling Wu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document