Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping

Abstract

For more than a century, lesion–symptom mapping studies have yielded valuable insights into the relationships between brain and behavior, but newer imaging techniques have surpassed lesion analysis in examining functional networks. Here we used a new method—voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping (VLSM)—to analyze the relationship between tissue damage and behavior on a voxel-by-voxel basis, as in functional neuroimaging. We applied VLSM to measures of speech fluency and language comprehension in 101 left-hemisphere-damaged aphasic patients: the VLSM maps for these measures confirm the anticipated contrast between anterior and posterior areas, and they also indicate that interacting regions facilitate fluency and auditory comprehension, in agreement with findings from modern brain imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Representative slices from VLSM maps computed for fluency and auditory comprehension performance of 101 aphasic stroke patients.
Figure 2: Representative slices from maps of voxel-by-voxel ANCOVAs covarying out particular anatomically defined voxels of interest.

References

  1. Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Cooper, G. & Damasio, A.R. J. Neurosci. 20, 2683–2690 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dronkers, N.F. Nature 384, 159–161 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Naeser, M.A. & Hayward, R.W. Neurology 28, 545–551 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Friedrich, F.J., Egly, R., Rafal, R.D. & Beck, D. Neuropsychology 12, 193–207 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chao, L.L. & Knight, R.T. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 167–177 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kertesz, A. Aphasia and Associated Disorders: Taxonomy, Localization and Recovery (Grune & Stratton, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Petersen, S.E., Fox, P.T., Posner, M.I., Mintun, M. & Raichle, M.E. Nature 331, 585–589 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Price, C.J. J. Anat. 197, 335–359 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maguire, E.A. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 4398–4403 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Metter, E.J. et al. Arch. Neurol. 47, 1235–1238 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Knight, R.T., Scabini, D., Woods, D.L. & Clayworth, C. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 70, 499–509 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dronkers, N.F., Wilkins, D.P., Van Valin, R.D. Jr., Redfern, B.B. & Jaeger, J.J. Cognition (in press).

  13. Wise, R. et al. Brain 114, 1803–1817 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blank, S.C., Scott, S.K., Murphy, K., Warburton, E. & Wise, R.J.S. Brain 125, 1829–1838 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wise, R.J.S., Greene, J., Büchel, C. & Scott, S.K. Lancet 353, 1057–1061 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank D.P. Wilkins and C. Ludy for comments, suggestions and assistance. This work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Research, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (PO1 NS17778, NINDS 21135, PO1 NS40813) and the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIH/NIDCD 2 R01 DC00216).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina F. Dronkers.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Methods for comparing VLSM maps. (a) A scatterplot of the correlation between fluency and comprehension t-scores, with voxels treated as subjects (r = 0.59). (b) Differences between the t-statistics for each of the tasks. The color codes are common across both panels, showing differences between t-scores. Red, voxels more important for fluency; blue, voxels more important for comprehension; green, voxels that were roughly equally relevant for both tasks. Faded colors denote lack of relevance to either measure. (JPG 55 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bates, E., Wilson, S., Saygin, A. et al. Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping. Nat Neurosci 6, 448–450 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1050

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1050

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing