| Autor: |
Schweisfurth MA; Biomedizinische NMR, Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, Göttingen, Germany.; Fakultät Life Sciences, Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany., Frahm J; Biomedizinische NMR, Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, Göttingen, Germany., Farina D; Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, Royal School of Mines, London, United Kingdom., Schweizer R; Biomedizinische NMR, Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, Göttingen, Germany.; Leibniz-ScienceCampus Primate Cognition, Göttingen, Germany. |
| Abstrakt: |
The tactile digit representations in the primary somatosensory cortex have so far been mapped for either the left or the right hand. This study localized all ten digit representations in right-handed subjects and compared them within and across the left and right hands to assess potential differences in the functional organization of the digit map between hands and in the structural organization between hemispheres. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of tactile stimulation of each fingertip in BA 3b confirmed the expected lateral-anterior-inferior to medial-posterior-superior succession from thumb to little-finger representation, located in the post-central gyrus opposite to the motor hand knob. While the more functionally related measures, such as the extent and strength of activation as well as the Euclidean distance between neighboring digit representations, showed significant differences between the digits, no side difference was detected: the layout of the functional digit-representation map did not consistently differ between the left, non-dominant, and the right, dominant hand. Comparing the absolute spatial coordinates also revealed a significant difference for the digits, but not between the left and right hand digits. Estimating the individual subject's digit coordinates of one hand by within-subject mirroring of the other-hand digit coordinates across hemispheres yielded a larger estimation error distance than using averaged across-subjects coordinates from within the same hemisphere. However, both methods should only be used with care for single-subject clinical evaluation, as an average estimation error of around 9 mm was observed, being slightly higher than the average distance between neighboring digits. |
