<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.nitrc.org/themes/nitrc3.0/css/rss.xsl.php?feed=https://www.nitrc.org/export/rss20_forum.php?forum_id=6267" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://www.nitrc.org/themes/nitrc3.0/css/rss.css" ?>
<rss version="2.0"> <channel>
  <title>NITRC News Group Forum: presurgical-motor--somatosensory-and-language-fmri--technical-feasibility-and-limitations-in-491-patients-over-13--years.</title>
  <link>http://www.nitrc.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=6267</link>
  <description>
	&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot;&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;/&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Presurgical motor, somatosensory and language fMRI: Technical feasibility and limitations in 491 patients over 13 years.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;          
        &lt;p&gt;Eur Radiol. 2016 May 19;&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;Authors:  Tyndall AJ, Reinhardt J, Tronnier V, Mariani L, Stippich C&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;Abstract&lt;br/&gt;
        OBJECTIVES: To analyse the long-term feasibility and limitations of presurgical fMRI in a cohort of tumour and epilepsy patients with different MR-scanners at 1.5 and 3.0 T.&lt;br/&gt;
        METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-one consecutive patients undergoing presurgical fMRI between 2000 and 2012 on five different MR-scanners using established paradigms and semi-automated data processing were included. Success rates of task performance and BOLD-activation were determined for motor and somatosensory somatotopic mapping and language localisation. Procedural success, failures and imaging artifacts were analysed. MR-field strengths were compared.&lt;br/&gt;
        RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred fifteen of 2348 (98.6 %) attempted paradigms (1033 motor, 1220 speech, 95 somatosensory) were successfully performed. 100 paradigms (4.3 %) were repetition runs. 23 speech, 6 motor and 2 sensory paradigms failed for non-compliance and technical issues. Most language paradigm failures were noted in overt sentence generation. Average significant BOLD-activation was higher for motor than language paradigms (95.8 vs. 81.6 %). Most language paradigms showed significantly higher activation rates at 3 T compared to 1.5 T, whereas no significant difference was found for motor paradigms.&lt;br/&gt;
        CONCLUSIONS: fMRI proved very robust for the presurgical localisation of the different motor and somatosensory body representations, as well as Broca's and Wernicke's language areas across different MR-scanners at 1.5 and 3.0 T over 13 years.&lt;br/&gt;
        KEY POINTS: • Standardised presurgical motor and language fMRI is robust across various MRI platforms. • Motor fMRI is less dependent on field strength than language fMRI. • fMRI task failures are relatively low and are reduced by paradigm repetition.&lt;br/&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;PMID: 27193934 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]&lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <copyright>Copyright 2000-2026 NITRC OSI</copyright>
  <webMaster></webMaster>
  <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 19:56:52 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
  <generator>NITRC RSS generator</generator>
 </channel>
</rss>
