Determination of Language Dominance: Wada Test and fMRI Compared Using a Novel Sentence Task

This study aimed to develop a new linguistic based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-sentence decision task that reliably detects hemispheric language dominance.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on behaviour and electrophysiology of language production

Excitatory anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) over the left dorsal prefrontal cortex (DPFC) has been shown to improve language production. The present study examined neurophysiological underpinnings of this effect. In a single-blinded within-subject design, we traced effects of A-tDCS compared to sham stimulation over the left DPFC using electrophysiological and behavioural correlates during overt picture naming. Online effects were examined during A-tDCS by employing the semantic interference (SI-)Effect – a marker that denotes the functional integrity of the language system. The behavioural SI-Effect was found to be reduced, whereas the electrophysiological SI-Effect was enhanced over left compared to right temporal scalp-electrode sites. This modulation is suggested to reflect a superior tuning of neural responses within language-related generators. After -(offline) effects of A-tDCS were detected in the delta frequency band, a marker of neural inhibition. After A-tDCS there was a reduction in delta activity during picture naming and the resting state, interpreted to indicate neural disinhibition. Together, these findings demonstrate electrophysiological modulations induced by A-tDCS of the left DPFC. They suggest that A-tDCS is capable of enhancing neural processes during and after application. The present functional and oscillatory neural markers could detect positive effects of prefrontal A-tDCS, which could be of use in the neuro-rehabilitation of frontal language functions.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.