Trial reportNeurosurgery2013
Multimodality word-finding distinctions in cortical stimulation mapping.
Trial report in Neurosurgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Language mapped to a high-resolution brain atlas for surgical evaluation of epilepsy patients.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Electrical Cortical Stimulation for Language Mapping in Epilepsy Surgery-A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- A left-lateralized dorsolateral prefrontal network for naming.Cell reports · 2025Article
- The Use of Standardized Intraoperative Language Tests in Awake Craniotomies: A Scoping Review.Neuropsychology review · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCortical stimulation mapping (CSM) commonly uses visual naming to determine resection margins in the dominant hemisphere of patients with epilepsy. Visual naming alone may not identify all language sites in resection-prone areas, prompting additional tasks for comprehensive language mapping.
objectiveTo demonstrate word-finding distinctions between visual, auditory, and reading modalities during CSM and the percentage of modality-specific language sites within dominant hemisphere subregions.
methodsTwenty-eight patients with epilepsy underwent CSM by the use of visual, auditory, and sentence-completion tasks. Hierarchical logistic regression analyzed errors to identify language sites and provide modality-specific percentages within subregions.
resultsThe percentage of sites classified as language sites based on auditory naming was twice as high in anterior temporal regions compared with visual naming, marginally higher in posterior temporal areas, and comparable in parietal regions. Sentence completion was comparable to visual and auditory naming in parietal regions and lower in most temporal areas. Of 470 sites tested with both visual and auditory naming, 95 sites were distinctly auditory, whereas 48 sites were distinctly visual. The remaining sites overlapped.
conclusionDistinct cortical areas were found for distinct input modalities, with language sites in anterior tip regions found most often by using auditory naming. The vulnerability of anterior temporal tip regions to resection in this population and distinct sites for each modality suggest that a multimodality approach may be needed to spare crucial language sites, if sparing those sites can be shown to significantly reduce the rate of postoperative language deficits without sacrificing seizure control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.