Skip to main content
. 2011 Jun-Jul;32(6):1056–1064. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2428

Fig 4.

Fig 4.

Comparison of LI values obtained with the classic GLM and ICA-GLM of controls and patients for the following tasks: With WGt, 2 controls presented a bilateral LI (−0.2 < LI < 0.2) with the GLM. The same 2 subjects showed a left dominance with ICA-GLM, while the third showed a bilateral organization with ICA-GLM. With VGt, the same 2 controls with bilateral LI with GLM. Both presented a left dominance with ICA-GLM. With WGt, 20 patients had an LI indicating a bilateral language organization with the GLM: Seven presented left dominance with ICA-GLM and 13 remained bilateral. Three patients showed a left dominance with the GLM but a bilateral dominance with ICA-GLM. Eighteen of the remaining patients had a left dominance with both the GLM and ICA-GLM, and 1, a concordant right dominance. With VGt, 16 patients presented a bilateral LI indicated by the GLM, of which 6 had left and 1 right dominance with ICA-GLM. Four patients showed a left dominance with the GLM but a bilateral dominance with ICA-GLM. One patient presented a right dominance with the GLM but a bilateral dominance with ICA-GLM. Of the remaining patients, 20 had a left dominance with both the GLM and ICA-GLM and 1 patient had a concordant right dominance.