Neuromagnetic source localization of auditory evoked fields and intracerebral evoked potentials:: a comparison of data in the same patients
Neuromagnetic source localization of auditory evoked fields and intracerebral evoked potentials:: a comparison of data in the same patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s1388-2457(01)00636-8
复制
发表时间：
2001-10-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Liégeois-Chauvel, C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Godey, B;Schwartz, D;Liégeois-Chauvel, C
目的：比较不同神经源(A)由脑内诱发反应(A)和(B)由同一受试者记录的体表听觉诱发电位计算出的神经源的定位。我们的目的是评估我们实验室目前使用的一种源定位方法的分辨率，该方法基于最近用于脑磁图(MEG)的时空算法。方法：研究4例内科难治性癫痫患者的听觉诱发反应。这些反应由植入听觉皮质的深度电极记录下来，用于术前评估(立体脑电(SEEG))。以及来自移除深度电极之后放置在头皮上的表面捕获器(对于MEG)。结果：所有的中潜伏期成分(刺激后13~70ms)均被记录并定位于Heschl‘s回(HG)。脑磁图可靠地将PAM和PLM定位在HG的同一区域，与脑内记录定位它们的区域相同。SEEG和MEG潜伏期之间没有明显的延迟。这两种方法都表明N1是在HG的中间和外侧部分和在颞叶平面(PT)中产生的。P2(PT和/或22区)的来源尚不清楚，其中一例根据使用的方法定位于不同的区域。因此，后一种成分也可能来自不同的来源。结论：结果表明，这两种技术都是有用的，可以互补使用。脑内录音使研究人员能够验证和解释表面录音。(C)2001爱思唯尔爱尔兰科学有限公司。保留所有权利。
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 Plm 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. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.