% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence % of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older. % Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or % “biber”. @ARTICLE{WeissLucas:825814, author = {Weiss Lucas, Carolin and Tursunova, Irada and Neuschmelting, Volker and Nettekoven, Charlotte and Oros-Peusquens, Ana-Maria and Stoffels, Gabriele and Faymonville, Andrea Maria and Shah, N. J. and Langen, Karl Josef and Lockau, Hannah and Goldbrunner, Roland and Grefkes, Christian}, title = {{F}unctional {MRI} vs. navigated {TMS} to optimize {M}1 seed volume delineation for {DTI} tractography. {A} prospective study in patients with brain tumours adjacent to the corticospinal tract}, journal = {NeuroImage: Clinical}, volume = {13}, issn = {2213-1582}, address = {[Amsterdam u.a.]}, publisher = {Elsevier}, reportid = {FZJ-2017-00116}, pages = {297 - 309}, year = {2017}, abstract = {DTI-based tractography is an increasingly important tool for planning brain surgery in patients suffering from brain tumours. However, there is an ongoing debate which tracking approaches yield the most valid results. Especially the use of functional localizer data such as navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) seem to improve fibre tracking data in conditions where anatomical landmarks are less informative due to tumour-induced distortions of the gyral anatomy. We here compared which of the two localizer techniques yields more plausible results with respect to mapping different functional portions of the corticospinal tract (CST) in brain tumour patients.}, cin = {INM-4 / INM-3 / JARA-BRAIN}, ddc = {610}, cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / $I:(DE-82)080010_20140620$}, pnm = {573 - Neuroimaging (POF3-573)}, pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-573}, typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16}, UT = {WOS:000401413700036}, doi = {10.1016/j.nicl.2016.11.022}, url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825814}, }