ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
The reliability of bilateral cerebral laterality for word generation: Who is left in the middle?
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemispheric segregation is evident in early perception, not just higher cognition.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Low-intensity transcranial focused ultrasound neuromodulation of the amygdala: is left always right?Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although word production is considered a strongly left hemispheric lateralized function, its cerebral asymmetry varies among individuals. The most popular way of determining hemisphere dominance is to calculate a laterality index (LI) by comparing brain activity between the two hemispheres. Large LIs can readily be classified as left or right dominant, but there is no consensus on how to treat bilateral LIs indicating (near) symmetrical activity. The problem with interpreting very small LIs is perpetuated by a lack of reliability, stemming from the challenge of systematically investigating these uncommon cases (usually ≤ 10% of a sample). To address this gap, we performed two studies that investigated the reliability and across-methods generalizability of bilateral LIs obtained from functional transcranial Doppler sonography (fTCDS)-an ultrasound-based approach that measures cerebral blood flow velocity. In Study 1, we compared reproducibility of bilateral LIs (n=35) and clearly lateralized LIs (n=32) during a letter verbal fluency fTCDS task across two sessions. While left-lateralized classifications were highly replicable (97% reproduced), poorer reproducibility was observed for bilateral classifications (51% reproduced). In fact, dichotomous left-right categorization yielded more reliable outcomes than assigning participants with bilateral LIs to a separate category (80% reproduced). Study 2 assessed whether small fTCDS asymmetry extended to other instruments for determining cerebral laterality (visual half-field method and fMRI). Participants consistently classified as bilateral by fTCDS (n=18) also exhibited reduced group-level asymmetry in these other methods. Based on these results, we suggest that LIs reflect a combination of idiosyncratic cerebral asymmetry, state-dependent fluctuations, and measurement noise. Our findings also indicate that a subset of the population has a neural system for word production that is inherently weakly lateralized, although true hemispheric equivalence is likely extremely rare. Finally, we offer recommendations for classifying asymmetry in clinical and research contexts.
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.