Elsevier

Clinical Neurophysiology

Volume 112, Issue 10, October 2001, Pages 1850-1859
Clinical Neurophysiology

Neuromagnetic source localization of auditory evoked fields and intracerebral evoked potentials: a comparison of data in the same patients

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00636-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective: To compare the localizations of different neural sources (a) obtained from intracerebral evoked responses and (b) calculated from surface auditory evoked field responses recorded in the same subjects. Our aim was to evaluate the resolving power of a source localization method currently used in our laboratory, which is based on a recent spatio-temporal algorithm used in magneto-encephalography (MEG).

Methods: Auditory evoked responses were studied in 4 patients with medically intractable epilepsy. These responses were recorded from depth electrodes implanted in the auditory cortex for pre-surgical evaluation (stereo-electro-encephalography (SEEG)), as well as from surface captors (for MEG) placed on the scalp after removal of the depth electrodes. Auditory stimuli were clicks and short tone bursts with different frequencies.

Results: All middle-latency components (from 13 to 70 ms post-stimulus onset) were recorded and localized (via SEEG) along Heschl's gyrus (HG). MEG reliably localized Pam and P1m in the same area of HG that intracerebral recordings localized them in. No significant delay between SEEG and MEG latencies was observed. Both methods suggest that N1 is generated from different sources in the intermediate and lateral parts of the HG and in the planum temporale (PT). The source of P2 (PT and/or Area 22) remains unclear and was in one case, localized in different regions according to the method used. This latter component may therefore also be generated by different sources.

Conclusions: The results suggest that both techniques are useful and may be used together in a complementary fashion. Intracerebral recordings allow the researcher to validate and interpret surface recordings.

Introduction

Different components of an auditory evoked potential (AEP) can be isolated and described as a function of latency, scalp topography, and the perceptual/cognitive process to which they are associated. Each component underlies a different aspect of auditory processing, beginning in the cochlea and terminating in the auditory cortex. The earliest components (<20 ms), corresponding to activity in the thalamo-cortical volley, are not reliably identifiable from the scalp. Several middle-latency potentials, however, can be identified from the scalp: Na (or Nam in the MEG literature) at 19 ms, Pa (or Pam) at 30 ms, Nb (or Nbm) at 40 ms, and Pb or P1 (Pbm or P1m) at 50 ms. Neuromagnetic data show that, while the Pam component is consistently observed in normal subjects, the other 3 are less reliable, occurring more or less frequently according to the study (Pelizzone et al., 1987, Reite et al., 1988, Scherg et al., 1989, Pantev et al., 1990, Pantev et al., 1993, Mäkelä et al., 1994). Pam's source has been localized in a region more anterior and more medial to that generating N1m (a large, robust late auditory evoked response peaking at 100 ms), suggesting that these components are generated in different regions of the auditory cortex. While P1, however, is thought to be generated in the primary auditory cortex (Huotilainen et al., 1998, Reite et al., 1988), neuromagnetic techniques fail to provide much data on the underlying neural sources of this and other middle-latency components because of the small amplitude that these components often have. Their sources may be localized more reliably from intracerebral recordings using depth electrodes implanted in the auditory cortex for the pre-surgical evaluation of medically intractable epilepsy.

In order to accurately localize and delineate the epileptic zone in the epileptic subject, pre-surgical evaluation (stereo-electro-encephalography (SEEG)) requires the stereotaxic implantation of multiple depth electrodes (Bancaud et al., 1965). Because the size and location of each cortectomy is different for each patient, it is important to have high spatio-temporal resolution of ictal and inter-ictal electrical activity. The superior temporal gyrus (STG) is a key structure in lateral and mesial–lateral temporal lobe epilepsy and is frequently evaluated intracerebrally (Bancaud and Talairach, 1992). Situated in the STG, the auditory cortex consists of several different anatomical structures. It includes the transverse gyri of Hschl (the dorso-postero-medial part of which corresponds to the primary auditory cortex; the lateral part of which corresponds to the secondary areas (Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1991)). The secondary areas continue caudally onto the planum temporale (PT) and extend ventrally above and slightly below the superior temporal sulcus.

Previous data suggest the existence of at least 7 middle-latency generators underlying their respective components at 13, 16, 30, 50, 60, 75, and 100 ms. Their sources are localized in different regions along the Heschl's gyrus (HG). N/P 16 and 30 originate from the most medial part of the primary cortex (i.e. the dorso-postero-medial part of the HG); N/P 50 (P1) is generated in the lateral part of the primary cortex; N/P 60 and 75 originate from the intermediate or lateral part of the HG (secondary cortex); and the N100 has at least two generators – one in the lateral part of HG and one in the PT (Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1991, Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1994). With respect to the generator of this latter component, much of the previous data has been discordant with some authors suggesting its localization in the primary auditory cortex (Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1994, Huotilainen et al., 1998).

Intracerebral recordings provide direct and accurate information on the localization of a component's generator. Scalp recordings, on the other hand, provide at best an estimate of a generator's localization, which must be calculated and which cannot be measured directly. Localizing these sources accurately requires the modeling of intracerebral sources and of the head, and the choice of the model affects spatial and temporal accuracy. While this presents a challenge for electroencephalography (EEG), magneto-encephalography (MEG) is a non-invasive technique, which offers better spatial resolution owing to highly sensitive captors and to the fact that it is less subject to interference from the skull than is EEG (Wikswo et al., 1993, Gevins, 1996). Recently, we had the opportunity to record and study neuromagnetic scalp and intracerebral AEPs in the same patients, making a comparison between magnetic source localization and source localization using depth electrodes possible.

The aim of the present study was to compare intracerebral and scalp auditory evoked responses and their respective source localizations. Such an endeavor would help us better appreciate the resolving power of the spatio-temporal algorithm currently used for MEG in our laboratory and could ultimately help assess the localization capacity and utility of non-invasive techniques in clinical settings.

Section snippets

Subjects

Recordings were carried out in 4 right-handed adult patients (3 males; one female), aged 21–43 years, with medically intractable partial seizures. In no patient was the epileptogenic foyer localized in the STG. During each recording session, subjects were laid comfortably in a bed and were instructed to remain attentive. In 3 patients, the right hemisphere was explored; in one patient, the left hemisphere was explored.

All subjects gave informed consent for all of the examinations and

Results

Fig. 2 (top) shows AEPs recorded in Case 1 from 9 consecutive leads along electrode H′ in the medial part of left HG (3 leads (H′1–3)) and PT (5 leads (H′4–8)) in response to the click stimuli. Lead H′1 recorded short-latency evoked responses (N15/P20/N30) characteristic of responses from the primary auditory cortex, followed by middle-latency components (P45/N60) and a slow-wave peaking around 90 ms. The amplitudes of the early components were smaller on leads H′2 and H′3 and disappeared

Discussion

The localization of generators from the SEEG data yielded similar results to those cited previously (Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1994). In Case 1 (using click stimuli), most of the middle-latency potentials (13–50 ms post-stimulus onset) previously recorded in the primary auditory cortex (Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1991, Liégeois-Chauvel et al., 1994) were observed. These responses show a polarity inversion compared to EEG surface responses (Streletz et al., 1977, Özdamar and Kraus, 1983, Cacace et

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J.M. Scarabin who was responsible for the implantation of electrodes and surgical intervention, J.M. Badier whose critical comments on a previous version of this paper were of great aid, P. Marquis for his technical assistance, and K. Giraud for revising the English version.

References (34)

  • M. Pelizzone et al.

    Cortical origin of middle latency auditory evoked responses in man

    Neurosci Lett

    (1987)
  • M. Reite et al.

    Source location of a 50 ms latency auditory evoked field component

    Electroenceph clin Neurophysiol

    (1988)
  • M. Reite et al.

    Auditory M100 component 1: relationship to Heschl’s gyri

    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res

    (1994)
  • M. Scherg et al.

    Two bilateral sources of the late AEP as identified by a spatio-temporal model

    Electroenceph clin Neurophysiol

    (1985)
  • L.J. Streletz et al.

    Scalp recorder auditory evoked potentials and sonomotor responses: an evaluation of components and recordings techniques

    Electroenceph clin Neurophysiol

    (1977)
  • J.P. Wikswo et al.

    The future of the EEG and MEG

    Electroenceph clin Neurophysiol

    (1993)
  • D.L. Arthur et al.

    Source localization of long latency auditory evoked magnetic fields in human temporal cortex

    (1987)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text