A Discrete Area within the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Involved in Visual--Verbal Incongruence Judgment

Pages 7
Views 15
of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Cerebral Cortex June 2008;18: doi: /cercor/bhm169 Advance Access publication October 5, 2007 A Discrete Area within the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Involved in Visual--Verbal Incongruence
Cerebral Cortex June 2008;18: doi: /cercor/bhm169 Advance Access publication October 5, 2007 A Discrete Area within the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Involved in Visual--Verbal Incongruence Judgment Monique Plaza 1, Peggy Gatignol 1, Henri Cohen 1, Brigitte Berger 1 and Hugues Duffau 1,2 1 Laboratoire de Psychologie et de Neurosciences Cognitives, FRE 2987 (CNRS/Universite de Paris V Rene Descartes), Institut de Psychologie, 71 avenue Edouard Vaillant, Boulogne Billancourt, France and 2 De partement de Neurochirurgie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Gui de Chauliac, Montpellier, France The role of the frontal lobe in cross-modal visual--auditory processing has been documented in experiments using incongruent/ congruent paradigms. In this study, 4 patients with left frontal World Health Organization Grade II glioma were assessed during pre-, intra-, and postoperative sessions with picture-naming and verbal--visual task requiring judgment of congruence between pictures and words. During awake brain surgery, the naming and crossmodal tasks were coupled with electrical stimulation inactivating restricted specific regions. For all patients, focal brain stimulation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex elicited picture--word matching disturbances but no naming impairment, and the elicited errors exclusively appeared in incongruent and not congruent conditions. The dissociation observed between correct picture naming and disturbed cross-modal judgment shows that electrical stimulation of a discrete cortical area within the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can inhibit the simultaneous processing of visual--verbal information without disturbing larger networks involved in the naming process. Keywords: electrical brain stimulation, judgment, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, phonology, visual--verbal incongruence Introduction Information from different modalities is integrated by the brain producing accurate and meaningful representation unobtainable from modalities taken in isolation (Molhom et al. 2004; Booth et al. 2005; Ross et al., 2007). The neurological literature on cross-modal visual--verbal processing has made it clear that large brain networks, notably in parietal, occipital, and temporal regions, contribute to the multimodal object representations (Calvert 2001; Molhom et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2006; Saint-Amour et al. 2007). The role of the frontal lobe in cross-modal visual--auditory processing has been documented in experiments using incongruent/congruent paradigms. Evoked related potentials (ERP) studies showed that negative components were elicited in the prefrontal cortex for incongruent pairs in experiments when gender information between male- and female-voiced syllables was matched with women and men photographs (Wang et al. 2002) and when phonologically or semantically incongruent words were paired with visual scenes (D Arcy et al. 2004). Congruent cross-modal stimuli specifically enhanced behavioral performance, whereas incongruent stimulus pairs resulted in behavioral decrements (Laurienti et al. 2004). But the role of prefrontal areas in congruence judgment is less clear. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rtms), and ERP studies showed that the prefrontal cortex, notably the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), contains a general mechanism for integrating perceptual information, independent of stimulus and response modalities, and for controlling various behaviors and decisions (Sirigu et al. 1995; Koechlin et al. 2000; Krawczyk 2002; Wood and Grafman 2003; Heekeren et al. 2004; Dudukovic and Wagner 2007; Fecteau et al. 2007; Herwig et al. 2007).The DLPFC is involved in the semantic processing of idiomatic and not literal sentences (Rizzo et al. 2007) and the maintenance of verbal working memory (Osaka et al. 2007). In this study, we implemented a visual--verbal judgment task during electrical brain stimulation in 4 patients with left frontal World Health Organization (WHO) Grade II glioma in order to determine whether the left frontal area is specifically involved in cross-modal visual--verbal integration. Considering the wide role of prefrontal areas, we contrasted picture-naming and picture--word matching tasks and focused on phonological and semantic matching in congruent versus incongruent conditions. Our observations were based on intraoperative assessment during cortical stimulation in awake patients. We hypothesized that the stimulation of some discrete prefrontal areas could induce cross-modal disturbances, notably in the incongruent condition, without generating any naming impairment. As the role of prefrontal areas in congruence judgment is less clear, direct electrical mapping should be useful for addressing this question. Materials and Methods Participants Four French right-handed adults were operated while awake on a left frontal WHO Grade II glioma using electrical language mapping. Patients were 2 women (IJ, 33 years and CC, 28 years) and 2 men (FV, 29 years and PR, 36 years), all with tumors revealed by seizures. Figure 1 shows the precise location of each tumor within the frontal lobe. All patients had normal preoperative neurological and neuropsychological examinations. In particular, preoperative performances on the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass and Kaplan 1983) as well as on the picture-naming test DO 80 (Metz-Lutz et al. 1991) were normal. The 4 subjects displayed neither auditory nor phonological impairment in language reception or production (see Table 1). Surgical Procedure Patients were placed in a lateral position on their right side. Intraoperative mapping was performed under local anesthesia using the technique of direct electrical stimulation already described by the authors (Duffau 2005; Thiebaut de Schotten et al. 2005). Briefly, a bipolar electrode with 5-mm spaced tips delivering a biphasic current nondeleterious for the nervous system (pulse frequency of 60 Hz, single pulse phase duration of 1 ms, amplitude from 2 to 6 ma) was placed on the patient s brain while awake. The stimulation began 0.5 ms before the presentation of the cross-modal stimuli and lasted 4 s. Sensory-motor and language functions were assessed. Patients were first asked to count (repetitively from 1 to 10) in order to identify the Ó The Author Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please Plaza Figure 1. Preoperative axial fluid attenuation inversion recovery-weighted MRIs showing tumor locations. (A) For patient FV, image reveals a left precentral glioma involving the middle and inferior frontal gyri. (B) Patient PR has a left precentral glioma involving the middle frontal gyrus. (C, D) Images show, for patients IJ and CC, respectively, a left mesial precentral glioma involving the superior frontal gyrus at the level of the supplementary motor area. areas essential for speech production, namely those with complete anarthria when stimulated. Second, a picture-naming test (DO 80) consisting of 80 black and white drawings of objects was used to detect anomia and naming impairment frequent symptoms in the aphasic syndromes. In this test, the required answer is short and thus easily produced during brain stimulation. This is why picture naming is the Gold Standard language task in intraoperative electrical mapping (Gatignol et al. 2004). The patient, the speech therapist, and the experimenter were all blind as to when the brain was stimulated. Each site was tested at least 3 times, 3 trials being enough to establish whether a cortical site is essential for a particular cognitive function (Ojemann et al. 1989). To avoid seizures, the same cortical site was never stimulated twice in a row. To ensure successful tumor removal while sparing functional areas, the limits of the resections were progressively set so as to preserve functional pathways in the immediate vicinity of the surgical cavity. Such a procedure minimizes residual morbidity while enhancing resection quality (Duffau 2005). Cross-Modal Tasks The tasks were presented on a portable computer, including pictures taken from the naming test (DO 80) and words spoken by a woman. Visual and verbal stimuli were presented simultaneous. Pictures were presented for 4 s with a 250-ms interstimuli interval. The design included 2 conditions. In the congruent condition, the visual and verbal stimuli referred to the same item. In the incongruent condition, the visual and verbal stimuli differed either semantically (e.g., sofa matched with a picture of an armchair) or phonetically (e.g., groix [grwa] matched with a picture of croix [krwa], i.e., a cross). Incongruence was thus expressed in terms of incompatible phonological (phonemic feature) or semantic (meaning word form) expectations. Task A, used in the pre- and postoperative assessments, involved 58 paired visual--verbal stimuli randomly presented in order to control for stimulus order effects. There were 30 congruent, 14 phonologically incongruent, and 14 semantically incongruent pairs. Semantically, all erroneous items belonged to the same conceptual category as the target (e.g., mammoth/elephant, sofa/armchair). The phonological errors involved consonant or vocalic substitutions in initial or medial position (e.g., t/k, p/f, p/b, and o/u). The phonologically mismatched pairs included 14 real or pseudowords differing by one phoneme only (e.g., balais/palais : [pale/bale]; e toile/itoile [etwal/itwal]). Task B, used in the intraoperative assessment, included 50 visual-- verbal pairs of stimuli taken from Task A. Task B was shorter than Task A due to surgical constraints. There were 30 congruent, 10 phonologically incongruent, and 10 semantically incongruent pairs presented in a fixed order. The operating surgeon knew which stimuli were congruent or incongruent during the electrical stimulation of brain areas, so as to exactly administer the same number of stimulations in each condition. Only sites in which electrical stimulation had induced neither counting nor naming disturbances were tested with the cross-modal Task B. Stimulation begun just before stimulus presentation. During the first experiment (with patient FV), the surgeon did not know a priori that prefrontal sites could be eloquent for crossmodal judgment. He only knew that he must avoid (and preserve) the sites in which stimulation induced naming disturbances, so the experimenters began to present cross-modal task when stimulation did not produce anymore naming errors in the prefrontal cortex. Each of the naming silent prefrontal cortical sites was systematically tested 3 times during the cross-modal task in each condition (congruent, phonologically incongruent, and semantically incongruent pairs), that is, 9 times per site. Moreover, as patients performed cross-modal task with and without stimulation, a baseline performance could be established during surgery, determining stimulation-specific effects. Thus, 3 tasks allowed to determine the specific cross-modal judgment performance during surgery: the naming test, the cross-modal assessment made the day before surgery, and the baseline performance without stimulation. Subjects were asked to look at the computer screen and report (yes/ no response) whether the visual and verbal stimuli were congruent. The subjects heard the verbal stimuli through an amplifier, adapted to the acoustics of the surgical theater. They were instructed to respond as rapidly and accurately as possible. Verbal responses were recorded, and no feedback was given. In order to delineate the resection area, the surgeon was informed of the items on which the patient committed errors during surgery and not the day before. Data analyses were based on comparisons between pre-, intra-, and postoperative assessments of cross-modal processing (Table 2). For each patient, Task A items with a wrong answer during pre- and postoperative sessions were excluded. Only errors committed by each patient during the intraoperative assessment on Task B, and correlated with the focal electrical stimulation, were considered. We reported in Table 3 all patient responses, with and without stimulation, and calculated by successive t-tests whether differences were significant between phonological and semantic, congruent and incongruent items. Results Pre-, Intra-, and Postoperative Visual--Verbal Skills in the 4 Patients Preoperative Results Performance was globally good for all subjects on Task A (2 or 3 errors, e.g., overall correct score 95%), and there were no errors with congruent items. Intraoperative Results All items processed without stimulation, as well as congruent items of Task B during the 12 electrical stimulations, were correctly performed. Performance was correct on all congruent items of Task B during the 12 electrical stimulations. In contrast, during the 24 electrical stimulations related to the incongruent pairs, the 1254 Visual--Verbal Incongruence Judgment d et al. Table 1 Results of Boston Diagnosis Apnasia Examination (BDAE) in the preoperative assessment Domain Subtest FV PR IJ CC Auditory comprehension Picture pointing 72/72 72/72 72/72 72/72 Body parts 20/20 20/20 16/20 16/20 Instructions 14/15 14/15 14/15 15/15 Reasoning 10/12 10/12 12/12 7/12 Fluency Articulation 7/7 7/7 7/7 7/7 Sentence length 7/7 7/7 7/7 7/7 Sequence repetition 14/14 13/14 14/14 13/14 Automatic speech Series 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 Recitation 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 Repetition Words 10/10 10/10 9.5/10 10/10 Concrete sentences 8/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 Abstract sentences 6/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 Oral reading Words 30/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 Sentences 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 Naming Definition 30/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 Pictures 105/ / / /105 Body parts 30/30 30/30 30/30 29/30 Aphasic troubles Phonemic troubles Jargon Written comprehension Letters discrimination 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 Verbal recitation 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 Spelled words 8/8 6/8 8/8 8/8 Words/pictures matching 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 Text reading 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 Spelling Writing 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 Automatic spelling 46/46 46/46 46/46 46/46 Dictation 15/15 15/15 15/15 15/15 Written naming 10/10 9/10 10/10 10/10 Graphic evocation 10/10 8/10 10/10 10/10 Sentences dictation 12/12 9/12 12/12 12/12 Description 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 Music Song 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 Rhythm 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 patients produced 17 specific cross-modal judgment errors and no congruence judgment errors. The phonological errors were related to consonant and vocalic phonemes such as t/k, p/f, b/ p, s/z, and o/u. The 3 semantic errors were produced with the word pairs fraise/cerise (strawberry/cherry; produced twice) and mammouth/e le phant (mammoth/elephant). The intraoperative results show that, only under electrical stimulation of the DLPFC, the patients committed 17/24 incongruence judgment errors (3 semantic and 14 phonological) versus 0/12 congruence judgment error. In all patients, none of the other prefrontal site generated cross-modal errors when stimulated. For 2 patients (FV and CC), subcortical stimulation immediately under the DLPFC generated crossmodal incongruence judgment errors. The t-tests show that the differences between phonological and semantic, congruent and incongruent items were statistically significant (P 0.01). Postoperative Results Six days after the surgical procedure, the 4 patients performed Task A with near-perfect accuracy: in all, 5 phonological and 2 semantic errors were committed, unrelated to those produced during the visual--verbal mapping procedure. It is worth noting that the 4 patients completely recovered from the transitory cognitive and linguistic impairments displayed after intervention. Several days after the surgical intervention, the 4 subjects performed visual--verbal tasks with relative accuracy, with no errors on congruent items. The patients recovered their functional preoperative status within 3 months following surgery, with no neurological deficit, and were able to resume a normal socioprofessional life. Anatomo-Functional Correlations All specific cross-modal errors appearing only in intraoperative session (Task B) and not in pre- and postoperative sessions (Task A) were induced during electrical stimulation of the left DLPFC (and, subcortically, of its fibers for 2 patients). Figure 2 shows the site locations of these specific cross-modal errors. Individual intraoperative maps and their respective legends are shown in the Figure 2A-D. Discussion For all patients, focal brain stimulation of a discrete cortical area within the left DLFPC leads to dissociated patterns of errors during the cross-modal judgment tasks. They were related to cross-modal visual--verbal skill but not picture naming (i.e., phonological and semantic production), implicated mismatched pairs but not congruent pairs, and patients produced significantly more phonological than semantic errors. The complexity of the left DLFPC and the respective neuroanatomical and neuropsychological bases of picture naming, visual--verbal processing, incongruence judgment, semantic, and phonological processing can account for these dissociated findings. The Complexity of the Left DLPFC The left DLPFC is implicated in complex and integrative skills such as divided attention (Johnson and Zatorre 2006; Wagner Cerebral Cortex June 2008, V 18 N Plaza Figure 2. Intraoperative views before resection and location of specific disturbances following electrical stimulation during Task B. The letter tags demarcate the tumors identified using intraoperative ultrasonography. (A) Patient FV: During the surgical session, electrical stimulation in the primary somatosensory area in (5), produced a digital dysesthesia; complete speech arrest with stimulation in the ventral premotor cortex in (10) and (11), dysarthria with facial movements in the face primary motor area in (12), and semantic paraphasias in the dorsal premotor cortex in (13). In the DLPFC (30), in front of the dorsal premotor cortex, electric stimulation produced 5 specific cross-modal visual-- auditory errors (1 semantic, 4 phonological) but no naming disturbance and no judgment error with congruent stimuli. (B) Patient PR: facial contraction was produced following electrical stimulation of the face primary motor area in (3), thumb and hand dysesthesia with stimulation of the primary somatosensory area in (10) and (11), respectively, and severe articulatory disturbances with stimulation of the ventral premotor cortex in (40), (41), (46), and (49). In addition, in (48), that is, the DLPFC (partly shifted anteriorly owing to a mass effect induced by the tumor), electrical stimulation produced 3 specific cross-modal visual--auditory errors (1 semantic and 2 phonological) but no naming difficulty and no judgment error with congruent stimuli. (C) Patient IJ: Electrical stimulation produced disturbances in finger movements in the primary motor area in (1); facial movements in the primary motor area in (2) and (10); anarthria in the ventral premotor cortex in (20) and (21); complete speech arrest in the pars opercularis in (30) and (41); anomia in the pars triangularis in (40), and phonemic paraphasia in the dorsal premotor cortex in (50). In the DLPFC (49), the stimulation generated 3 specific cross-modal visual--verbal errors (all phonological) but no naming error and no judgment error with congruent stimuli. (D) Patient CC: Electrical stimulation produced disturbances in the following areas: primary motor area of the fingers (1) and (2); primary motor area of the face (10) and (11); ventral premotor area, inducing anarthria when stimulated (20) and (21); dorsal premotor area, inducing phonemic paraphasia during stimulation (12) and (13). In (22), that is, the DLPFC, in front of the premotor cortex, electrical stimulation produced 6 specific cross-modal visual--verbal errors (5 phonological and 1 semantic) but no naming difficulty and no judgment error with congruent stimuli. et al. 2006), t
Related Documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!