测量语言侧化的方法:比较两种 fMRI 方法和功能性经颅多普勒超声的探索性研究。

IF 3.6 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Neurobiology of Language Pub Date : 2024-06-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/nol_a_00136
Dorothy V M Bishop, Zoe V J Woodhead, Kate E Watkins
{"title":"测量语言侧化的方法:比较两种 fMRI 方法和功能性经颅多普勒超声的探索性研究。","authors":"Dorothy V M Bishop, Zoe V J Woodhead, Kate E Watkins","doi":"10.1162/nol_a_00136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this exploratory study we compare and contrast two methods for deriving a laterality index (LI) from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data: the weighted bootstrapped mean from the LI Toolbox (toolbox method), and a novel method that uses subtraction of activations from homologous regions in left and right hemispheres to give an array of difference scores (mirror method). Data came from 31 individuals who had been selected to include a high proportion of people with atypical laterality when tested with functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD). On two tasks, word generation and semantic matching, the mirror method generally gave better agreement with fTCD laterality than the toolbox method, both for individual regions of interest, and for a large region corresponding to the middle cerebral artery. LI estimates from this method had much smaller confidence intervals (CIs) than those from the toolbox method; with the mirror method, most participants were reliably lateralised to left or right, whereas with the toolbox method, a higher proportion were categorised as bilateral (i.e., the CI for the LI spanned zero). Reasons for discrepancies between fMRI methods are discussed: one issue is that the toolbox method averages the LI across a wide range of thresholds. Furthermore, examination of task-related <i>t</i>-statistic maps from the two hemispheres showed that language lateralisation is evident in regions characterised by deactivation, and so key information may be lost by ignoring voxel activations below zero, as is done with conventional estimates of the LI.</p>","PeriodicalId":34845,"journal":{"name":"Neurobiology of Language","volume":"5 2","pages":"409-431"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11192441/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Approaches to Measuring Language Lateralisation: An Exploratory Study Comparing Two fMRI Methods and Functional Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound.\",\"authors\":\"Dorothy V M Bishop, Zoe V J Woodhead, Kate E Watkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/nol_a_00136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this exploratory study we compare and contrast two methods for deriving a laterality index (LI) from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data: the weighted bootstrapped mean from the LI Toolbox (toolbox method), and a novel method that uses subtraction of activations from homologous regions in left and right hemispheres to give an array of difference scores (mirror method). Data came from 31 individuals who had been selected to include a high proportion of people with atypical laterality when tested with functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD). On two tasks, word generation and semantic matching, the mirror method generally gave better agreement with fTCD laterality than the toolbox method, both for individual regions of interest, and for a large region corresponding to the middle cerebral artery. LI estimates from this method had much smaller confidence intervals (CIs) than those from the toolbox method; with the mirror method, most participants were reliably lateralised to left or right, whereas with the toolbox method, a higher proportion were categorised as bilateral (i.e., the CI for the LI spanned zero). Reasons for discrepancies between fMRI methods are discussed: one issue is that the toolbox method averages the LI across a wide range of thresholds. Furthermore, examination of task-related <i>t</i>-statistic maps from the two hemispheres showed that language lateralisation is evident in regions characterised by deactivation, and so key information may be lost by ignoring voxel activations below zero, as is done with conventional estimates of the LI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurobiology of Language\",\"volume\":\"5 2\",\"pages\":\"409-431\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11192441/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurobiology of Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00136\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurobiology of Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这项探索性研究中,我们比较并对比了从功能磁共振成像(fMRI)数据中得出侧位指数(LI)的两种方法:LI 工具箱中的加权自引导平均值(工具箱法)和一种新方法,后者使用减去左右半球同源区域的激活来给出一系列差异分数(镜像法)。数据来自 31 人,这些人在接受功能性经颅多普勒超声(fTCD)测试时被选中,其中有很大一部分人的侧位不典型。在单词生成和语义匹配这两项任务中,镜像法与 fTCD 侧位的一致性普遍优于工具箱法,无论是在单个相关区域,还是在与大脑中动脉相对应的一个大区域。这种方法得出的侧位估计值的置信区间(CI)比工具箱方法小得多;使用镜像方法,大多数参与者都能可靠地侧位到左侧或右侧,而使用工具箱方法,被归类为双侧的比例较高(即侧位估计值的置信区间为零)。本文讨论了 fMRI 方法之间存在差异的原因:其中一个问题是,工具箱方法是在广泛的阈值范围内平均 LI。此外,对来自两个半球的任务相关 t 统计图的研究表明,语言的侧向性在以失活为特征的区域非常明显,因此如果像传统的 LI 估算方法那样忽略低于零的体素激活,可能会丢失关键信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Approaches to Measuring Language Lateralisation: An Exploratory Study Comparing Two fMRI Methods and Functional Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound.

In this exploratory study we compare and contrast two methods for deriving a laterality index (LI) from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data: the weighted bootstrapped mean from the LI Toolbox (toolbox method), and a novel method that uses subtraction of activations from homologous regions in left and right hemispheres to give an array of difference scores (mirror method). Data came from 31 individuals who had been selected to include a high proportion of people with atypical laterality when tested with functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD). On two tasks, word generation and semantic matching, the mirror method generally gave better agreement with fTCD laterality than the toolbox method, both for individual regions of interest, and for a large region corresponding to the middle cerebral artery. LI estimates from this method had much smaller confidence intervals (CIs) than those from the toolbox method; with the mirror method, most participants were reliably lateralised to left or right, whereas with the toolbox method, a higher proportion were categorised as bilateral (i.e., the CI for the LI spanned zero). Reasons for discrepancies between fMRI methods are discussed: one issue is that the toolbox method averages the LI across a wide range of thresholds. Furthermore, examination of task-related t-statistic maps from the two hemispheres showed that language lateralisation is evident in regions characterised by deactivation, and so key information may be lost by ignoring voxel activations below zero, as is done with conventional estimates of the LI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurobiology of Language
Neurobiology of Language Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
32
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信