These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Neuromagnetic source localization of auditory evoked fields and intracerebral evoked potentials: a comparison of data in the same patients.
    Author: Godey B, Schwartz D, de Graaf JB, Chauvel P, Liégeois-Chauvel C.
    Journal: Clin Neurophysiol; 2001 Oct; 112(10):1850-9. PubMed ID: 11595143.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the localizations of different neural sources (a) obtained from intracerebral evoked responses and (b) calculated from surface auditory evoked field responses recorded in the same subjects. Our aim was to evaluate the resolving power of a source localization method currently used in our laboratory, which is based on a recent spatio-temporal algorithm used in magneto-encephalography (MEG). METHODS: Auditory evoked responses were studied in 4 patients with medically intractable epilepsy. These responses were recorded from depth electrodes implanted in the auditory cortex for pre-surgical evaluation (stereo-electro-encephalography (SEEG)), as well as from surface captors (for MEG) placed on the scalp after removal of the depth electrodes. Auditory stimuli were clicks and short tone bursts with different frequencies. RESULTS: All middle-latency components (from 13 to 70 ms post-stimulus onset) were recorded and localized (via SEEG) along Heschl's gyrus (HG). MEG reliably localized Pam and P1m in the same area of HG that intracerebral recordings localized them in. No significant delay between SEEG and MEG latencies was observed. Both methods suggest that N1 is generated from different sources in the intermediate and lateral parts of the HG and in the planum temporale (PT). The source of P2 (PT and/or Area 22) remains unclear and was in one case, localized in different regions according to the method used. This latter component may therefore also be generated by different sources. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that both techniques are useful and may be used together in a complementary fashion. Intracerebral recordings allow the researcher to validate and interpret surface recordings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]