Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 245

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Language dominance in partial epilepsy patients identified with an fMRI reading task

Gaillard, W. D., Balsamo, L., Xu, B., Grandin, C. B., Braniecki, S. H., Papero, P. H., Weinstein, S., Conry, J., Pearl, P. L., Sachs, B., Sato, S., Jabbari, B., Vezina, L. G., Frattali, C., Theodore, W. H.·2002·Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: fMRI language tasks readily identify frontal language areas; temporal activation has been less consistent. No studies have compared clinical visual judgment to quantitative region of interest (ROI) analysis. OBJECTIVE: To identify temporal language areas in patients with partial epilepsy using a reading paradigm with clinical and ROI interpretation. METHODS: Thirty patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, aged 8 to 56 years, had 1.5-T fMRI. Patients silently named an object described by a sentence compared to a visual control. Data were analyzed with ROI analysis from t-maps. Regional asymmetry indices (AI) were calculated ([L-R]/[L+R]) and language dominance defined as >0.20. t-Maps were visually rated by three readers at three t thresholds. Twenty-one patients had intracarotid amobarbital test (IAT). RESULTS: The fMRI reading task provided evidence of language lateralization in 27 of 30 patients with ROI analysis. Twenty-five were left dominant, two right, one bilateral, and two were nondiagnostic; IAT and fMRI agreed in most patients, three had partial agreement, none overtly disagreed. Interrater agreement ranged between 0.77 to 0.82 (Cramer V; p < 0.0001); agreement between visual and ROI reading with IAT was 0.71 to 0.77 (Cramer V; p < 0.0001). Viewing data at lower thresholds added interpretation to 12 patients on visual analysis and 8 with ROI analysis. CONCLUSIONS: An fMRI reading paradigm can identify language dominance in frontal and temporal areas. Clinical visual interpretation is comparable to quantitative ROI analysis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.59.2.256

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 245

Metadata

Authors
Gaillard, W. D., Balsamo, L., Xu, B., Grandin, C. B., Braniecki, S. H., Papero, P. H., Weinstein, S., Conry, J., Pearl, P. L., Sachs, B., Sato, S., Jabbari, B., Vezina, L. G., Frattali, C., & Theodore, W. H.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2002-07-23
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
256-265
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2106594589
Cited by
245
References
6
FWCI
7.74
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: Language dominance in partial epilepsy patients identified with an fMRI reading task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.59.2.256
The paper
Gaillard, W. D., Balsamo, L., Xu, B., Grandin, C. B., Braniecki, S. H., Papero, P. H., Weinstein, S., Conry, J., Pearl, P. L., Sachs, B., Sato, S., Jabbari, B., Vezina, L. G., Frattali, C., & Theodore, W. H. (2002). Language dominance in partial epilepsy patients identified with an fMRI reading task. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.59.2.256

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.