Childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), a common form of idiopathic generalized epilepsy, accounts for 5%-15% of childhood epilepsies. To map the chromosomal locus of persisting CAE, we studied the clinical and electroencephalographic traits of 78 members of a five-generation family from Bombay, India. The model-free affected-pedigree member method was used during initial screening with chromosome 6p, 8q, and 1p microsatellites, and only individuals with absence seizures and/or electroencephalogram 3-4-Hz spike- and multispike-slow wave complexes were considered to be affected. Significant P values of .00000-.02 for several markers on 8q were obtained. Two-point linkage analysis, assuming autosomal dominant inheritance with 50% penetrance, yielded a maximum LOD score (Zmax) of 3.6 for D8S502. No other locus in the genome achieved a significant Zmax. For five smaller multiplex families, summed Zmax was 2.4 for D8S537 and 1.7 for D8S1761. Haplotypes composed of the same 8q24 microsatellites segregated with affected members of the large family from India and with all five smaller families. Recombinations positioned the CAE gene in a 3.2-cM interval.

SUMMARYIn the last 10-15 years the ILAE Commission on Classification and Terminology has been presenting proposals to modernize the current ILAE Classification of Epileptic Seizures and Epilepsies. These proposals were discussed extensively in a series of articles published recently in Epilepsia and Epilepsy Currents. There is almost universal consensus that the availability of new diagnostic techniques as also of a modern understanding of epilepsy calls for a complete revision of the Classification of Epileptic Seizures and Epilepsies. Unfortunately, however, the Commission is still not prepared to take a bold step ahead and completely revisit our approach to classification of epileptic seizures and epilepsies. In this manuscript we critically analyze the current proposals of the Commission and make suggestions for a classification system that reflects modern diagnostic techniques and our current understanding of epilepsy.

There are at least five types of alterations of consciousness that occur during epileptic seizures: auras with illusions or hallucinations, dyscognitive seizures, epileptic delirium, dialeptic seizures, and epileptic coma. Each of these types of alterations of consciousness has a specific semiology and a distinct pathophysiologic mechanism. In this proposal we emphasize the need to clearly define each of these alterations/loss of consciousness and to apply this terminology in semiologic descriptions and classifications of epileptic seizures. The proposal is a consensus opinion of experienced epileptologists, and it is hoped that it will lead to systematic studies that will allow a scientific characterization of the different types of alterations/loss of consciousness described in this article.

Summary This article critiques the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2015‐2017 classifications of epilepsy, epileptic seizures, and status epilepticus. It points out the following shortcomings of the ILAE classifications: (1) they mix semiological terms with epileptogenic zone terminology; (2) simple and widely accepted terminology has been replaced by complex terminology containing less information; (3) seizure evolution cannot be described in any detail; (4) in the four‐level epilepsy classification, level two (epilepsy category) overlaps almost 100% with diagnostic level one (seizure type); and (5) the design of different classifications with distinct frameworks for newborns, adults, and patients in status epilepticus is confusing. The authors stress the importance of validating the new ILAE classifications and feel that the decision of Epilepsia to accept only manuscripts that use the ILAE classifications is premature and regrettable.

These observations support the existence of a visual language area in the dominant fusiform and occipitotemporal gyri, contiguous with basal temporal language area. A portion of visual language area was exclusively involved in lexical processing while the other part of this region processed both lexical and nonlexical symbols.