Name:
1-s2.0-S2213158216300560-main.pdf
Size:
2.287Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
FInal Published Version
Affiliation
Univ Arizona, Dept Speech Language & Hearing SciUniv Arizona, Dept Neurol
Univ Arizona, Dept Linguist
Issue Date
2017
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
ELSEVIER SCI LTDCitation
Validity and reliability of four language mapping paradigms 2017, 16:399 NeuroImage: ClinicalJournal
NeuroImage: ClinicalRights
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
Language areas of the brain can be mapped in individual participants with functional MRI. We investigated the validity and reliability of four language mapping paradigms that may be appropriate for individuals with acquired aphasia: sentence completion, picture naming, naturalistic comprehension, and narrative comprehension. Five neurologically normal older adults were scanned on each of the four paradigms on four separate occasions. Validity was assessed in terms of whether activation patterns reflected the known typical organization of language regions, that is, lateralization to the left hemisphere, and involvement of the left inferior frontal gyrus and the left middle and/or superior temporal gyri. Reliability (test-retest reproducibility) was quantified in terms of the Dice coefficient of similarity, which measures overlap of activations across time points. We explored the impact of different absolute and relative voxelwise thresholds, a range of cluster size cutoffs, and limitation of analyses to a priori potential language regions. We found that the narrative comprehension and sentence completion paradigms offered the best balance of validity and reliability. However, even with optimal combinations of analysis parameters, there were many scans on which known features of typical language organization were not demonstrated, and test-retest reproducibility was only moderate for realistic parameter choices. These limitations in terms of validity and reliability may constitute significant limitations for many clinical or research applications that depend on identifying language regions in individual participants. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND licenseNote
Open Access Journal.ISSN
22131582PubMed ID
28879081Version
Final published versionSponsors
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH) [R01 DC013270]Additional Links
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213158216300560ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.015
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.