Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 11;14(5):e24901.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.24901. eCollection 2022 May.

Motor Mapping of the Brain: Taniguchi Versus Penfield Method

Faisal R Jahangiri  1   2   3   4 , Marie Liang  5   2 , Shabab S Kabir  5   2 , Oly Khowash  5
Affiliations

Motor Mapping of the Brain: Taniguchi Versus Penfield Method

Faisal R Jahangiri et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) techniques continue to prove useful as an adjunct in select surgeries for reducing the incidence of various postoperative deficits in motor function through the monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEPs). The Penfield and Taniguchi methods of direct electrical cortical stimulation (DECS) stand in contrast to each other. Penfield's method uses lower-frequency stimulation over a longer duration, while Taniguchi's method uses a relatively higher frequency over a short duration. DECS motor mapping is considered suitable for tumor resections, aneurysm surgeries, arteriovenous malformation, and epilepsy surgeries. While subcortical motor mapping works efficiently with both methods, it aligns with Taniguchi's method more effectively. Taniguchi's method has a lower risk of seizures relative to Penfield's method. While only cortical neurons are excited in Penfield's stimulation technique, Taniguchi's technique excites the whole corticospinal tract (CST), so it can be used for mapping in a stand-alone fashion. The Penfield technique remains the method of choice for language mapping. In all motor mapping, Train-of-Four (TOF) stimulation during the surgical procedure ensures that the patient's muscles are not unduly relaxed.

Keywords: cortical mapping; ionm; motor mapping; neuromonitoring; neurophysiology; penfield; taniguchi.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Grid electrodes used for direct cortical stimulation (DCS) and recording during cortical mapping procedures
From top to bottom: a 2 × 4 contacts grid electrode, a 1 × 6 contacts grid electrode, and a 1 × 8 contacts grid electrode
Figure 2
Figure 2. Handheld ball tip stimulation probes used for motor mapping
Top: bipolar stimulation probe used in the Penfield method; bottom: monopolar stimulation probe used in the Taniguchi method Anodal stimulation is used for cortical motor mapping, and cathodal stimulation is used for subcortical motor mapping.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Penfield motor mapping method
Penfield 50 Hz motor mapping evoked responses after bipolar handheld stimulation. Multiple responses are recorded in the forearm and hand muscles. Face: orbicularis oris; deltoid, arm: biceps brachii; forearm: brachioradialis/flexor carpi ulnaris; hand: abductor pollicis brevis/abductor digiti minimi; leg: tibialis anterior; foot: abductor hallucis EMG: electromyography; DECS: Penfield direct electrical cortical stimulation; ECoG: electrocorticography
Figure 4
Figure 4. Taniguchi motor mapping method
Taniguchi 320 Hz motor mapping evoked responses after monopolar handheld stimulation. Responses are recorded in the forearm (flexor carpi ulnaris) and hand (abductor pollicis brevis) muscles. Oris: orbicularis oris; biceps: biceps brachii; flexor carpi ulnaris, first dorsal interosseous, abductor pollicis brevis, tibialis anterior, and abductor hallucis muscles EMG: electromyography; DECS: Taniguchi direct electrical cortical stimulation; ECoG: electrocorticography
Figure 5
Figure 5. Taniguchi motor mapping method
Taniguchi 320 Hz motor mapping evoked responses after monopolar handheld stimulation. Responses are recorded in the tibialis anterior (leg) and abductor hallucis (foot) muscles. Oris: orbicularis oris; biceps: biceps brachii; flexor carpi ulnaris, first dorsal interosseous, abductor pollicis brevis, tibialis anterior, and abductor hallucis muscles EMG: electromyography; DECS: Taniguchi direct electrical cortical stimulation; ECoG: electrocorticography
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Comparison between monopolar and bipolar electrical stimulation of the motor cortex. Kombos T, Suess O, Kern BC, Funk T, Hoell T, Kopetsch O, Brock M. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999;141:1295–1301. - PubMed
    1. The significance of intraoperative monitoring of muscle motor evoked potentials during unruptured large and giant cerebral aneurysm surgery. Takebayashi S, Kamiyama H, Takizawa K, Kobayashi T, Saitoh N. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2014;54:180–188. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Combined motor evoked potential monitoring and subcortical dynamic mapping in motor eloquent tumors allows safer and extended resections. Moiyadi A, Velayutham P, Shetty P, et al. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:0–68. - PubMed
    1. Mapping of the motor cortex. Jahangiri FR, Dobariya A, Kruse A, Kalyta O, Moorman JD. Cureus. 2020;12:0. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Intraoperative risk of seizures associated with transient direct cortical stimulation in patients with symptomatic epilepsy. Szelényi A, Joksimovic B, Seifert V. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;24:39–43. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources