The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Lesion-Symptom Mapping
Abstract
Measures of brain activation (e.g., changes in scalp electrical potentials) have become the most popular method for inferring brain function. However, examining brain disruption (e.g., examining behavior after brain injury) can complement activation studies. Activation techniques identify regions involved with a task, whereas disruption techniques are able to discover which regions are crucial for a task. Voxel-based lesion mapping can be used to determine relationships between behavioral measures and the location of brain injury, revealing the function of brain regions. Lesion mapping can also correlate the effectiveness of neurosurgery with the location of brain resection, identifying optimal surgical targets. Traditionally, voxel-based lesion mapping has employed the chi-square test when the clinical measure is binomial and the Student's t test when measures are continuous. Here we suggest that the Liebermeister approach for binomial data is more sensitive than the chi-square test. We also suggest that a test described by Brunner and Munzel is more appropriate than the t test for nonbinomial data because clinical and neuropsychological data often violate the assumptions of the t test. We test our hypotheses comparing statistical tests using both simulated data and data obtained from a sample of stroke patients with disturbed spatial perception. We also developed software to implement these tests (MRIcron), made freely available to the scientific community.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods
Wilcoxon, F. (1945) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3001968 · Cited by 15,354
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888
Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping
Bates, E., Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Dick, F., Sereno, M. I., Knight, R. T., & Dronkers, N. F. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1050 · Cited by 1,457
Cited by
Informatic parcellation of the network involved in the computation of subjective value
Clithero, J. A., & Rangel, A. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst106 · Cited by 706
Fox, K. C. R., Spreng, R. N., Ellamil, M., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Christoff, K. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.039 · Cited by 690
Meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging studies in schizophrenia
Ellison-Wright, I., & Bullmore, E. (2009) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2008.11.021 · Cited by 715
Fox, K. C. R., Dixon, M. L., Nijeboer, S., Girn, M., Floman, J. L., Lifshitz, M., Ellamil, M., Sedlmeier, P., & Christoff, K. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.021 · Cited by 656
Anatomy of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: A meta-analysis
Ellison-Wright, I., & Bullmore, E. (2010) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2009.12.022 · Cited by 565
Metadata
- Authors
- Rorden, C., Karnath, H.-O., & Bonilha, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2007-07-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1081-1088
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2124088053
- Cited by
- 1,346
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving Lesion-Symptom Mapping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1081
- The paper
- Rorden, C., Karnath, H.-O., & Bonilha, L. (2007). Improving Lesion-Symptom Mapping. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1081
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.