Cerebral magnetic fields to lingual stimulation

Karhu, Jari; Hari, Riitta; Lu, Sing-Teh; Paetau, Ritva; Rif, Josi

doi:10.1016/0168-5597(91)90127-j

Cited by 52 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main problems associated with SEPs and SEFs for trigeminal nerve are the contamination of stimulus artifacts and muscle activities due to the short distance between stimulus and recording area (Altenmüller et al, 1990;Karhu et al, 1991;Nagamatsu et al, 2000). Since the early time rage of trigeminal SEFs was easily contaminated by these artifacts, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate cortical responses from artifacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of lip sensory disturbance using somatosensory evoked magnetic fields

Maezawa

Matsuhashi

Yoshida

et al. 2014

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of lip sensory disturbance using somatosensory evoked magnetic fields

Maezawa

Matsuhashi

Yoshida

et al. 2014

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This study accepted only ECDs accounting for > 90% of the field variance and with confidence volume < 1 cm 3 . The single-ECD assumption is well known to account for the peak signals in previous MEG studies of SI response (Karhu et al 1991;Hari et al 1993;Kakigi 1994;Kawamura et al 1996;Nakasato et al 1996;Ohtomo et al 1996;Iwasaki et al 2001;Nagamatsu et al 2001;Nakahara et al 2004). Therefore, we used the single-ECD model for the hemispheric data contralateral to the stimulus side.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuromagnetic Evidence that Gingiva Area is Adjacent to Tongue Area in Human Primary Somatosensory Cortex

Murayama

Nakasato

Nakahara

et al. 2005

Tohoku J. Exp. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. and ITOH, H. Neuromagnetic Evidence that Gingiva Area is Adjacent to Tongue Area in Human Primary Somatosensory Cortex. Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 2005, 207 (3), 191-196 The somatotopic organization of the human primary somatosensory (SI) area in the cerebral cortex has been intensively studied for the hand, lip, and tongue, but little is known about the gingiva. Penfield concluded that the gingival SI area was above the tongue area, as shown in his famous homunculus map. However, our recent study suggested that the lingual gingiva area was not so different to the tongue area. To delineate the fine SI somatotopy of the gingiva area, evoked magnetic fields were measured in 6 healthy subjects for the stimulus of the anterior or posterior and upper or lower parts of the lip, buccal and lingual gingiva, and tongue. Source position was estimated by a current dipole model at the first peak of the posterior-oriented current in a total of 12 cerebral hemispheres contralateral to the stimulation side. No significant difference was found between the positions of anterior and posterior or upper and lower parts of each structure. Both buccal and lingual gingiva areas were localized adjacent to the tongue area, but significantly lower than the lip area. We believe that the fine SI somatotopy of the human oral structures should be reconsidered.

show abstract

“…It has been shown that electrical stimulation of the tongue evokes cortical potentials detected by both electroencephalography [1] and magnetoencephalography [2]. By comparison, it has been shown that tactile stimulation of the tongue results in large artifacts in the recorded, cortically evoked potentials [3], presumably because the associated tongue motion generates shifts in the electrophysiological recording.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetoencephalographic Response Characteristics Associated with Tongue Movement

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG) was employed to study the sources of activation evoked by both active tongue movement and swallowing in five healthy subjects. Evoked magnetic fields were adequately explained in both paradigms by a time-varying single-dipole model which localized in the tongue in all subjects. No additional brain sources were detectable. Therefore, MEG detects fields associated with tongue movement that best fit a single-dipole source in the tongue. Future electrophysiological brain activation studies where tongue movement is likely should be aware of this observation since the tongue behaves like a strong current dipole.

show abstract

Cerebral magnetic fields to lingual stimulation

Cited by 52 publications

References 21 publications

Evaluation of lip sensory disturbance using somatosensory evoked magnetic fields

Evaluation of lip sensory disturbance using somatosensory evoked magnetic fields

Neuromagnetic Evidence that Gingiva Area is Adjacent to Tongue Area in Human Primary Somatosensory Cortex

Magnetoencephalographic Response Characteristics Associated with Tongue Movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About