
==== Front
Ann Gen Hosp PsychiatryAnnals of General Hospital Psychiatry1475-2832BioMed Central London 1475-2832-3-141530603510.1186/1475-2832-3-14ReviewElectroconvulsive therapy and determination of cerebral dominance Dragovic Milan 1milan@ccrn.uwa.edu.auAllet Lindsay 2Jean.Allet@health.wa.gov.auJanca Aleksandar 23ajanca@cyllene.uwa.edu.au1 Centre for Clinical Research in Neuropsychiatry, Graylands Hospital, Perth, Australia2 Inner City Mental Health Service, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia3 School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia2004 12 8 2004 3 14 14 30 6 2004 12 8 2004 Copyright © 2004 Dragovic et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.2004Dragovic et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) often results in a number of short- and long-time side effects including memory impairment for past and current events, which can last for several months after ECT treatment. It has been suggested that unilateral ECT (uECT) with electrodes placed over the non-dominant (typically right) hemisphere significantly reduces side effects, especially memory disturbances. It is important to note that cerebral dominance equates to speech dominance and avoiding this area of the brain also reduces speech dysfunction after ECT. Traditionally, the routine clinical determination of cerebral dominance has been through the assessment of hand, foot and eye dominance, which is an easy and inexpensive approach that, however, does not ensure accuracy. This review of literature on different methods and techniques for determination of cerebral dominance and provides evidence that functional transcranial Doppler sonography (fTCD) represents a valid and safe alternative to invasive techniques for identifying speech lateralisation. It can be concluded that fTCD, notwithstanding its costs, could be used as a standard procedure prior to uECT treatment to determine cerebral dominance, thereby further reducing cognitive side-effects of ECT and possibly making it more acceptable to both patients and clinicians.
==== Body
Introduction
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often regarded by the general public as a controversial procedure for the treatment of mental disorders. This is despite evidence of its safety and efficacy [1], and its benefit over anti-depressants in patients resistant to conventional medications and those with life threatening conditions such as catatonia and depressive stupor. The evidence suggests that in unipolar depression ECT has better efficacy when compared with older tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors, as well as newer drugs such as paroxetine [2]. Notwithstanding the efficacy of ECT, its use is declining in some countries [3], while in a few others, including Italy – where ECT was first introduced in 1938 by Cerletti and Bini – it is prohibited. Aside from political reasons and public pressure, the declining trend in ECT use could be the result of the introduction of more effective antidepressants.

A further possible explanation for the reduction in ECT use may relate to the concern over adverse effects of the procedure. There are a number of short-term side effects including headache, nausea and, sometimes, brief confusion. However, the main side effect of concern is memory impairment for past events (retrograde amnesia) and for current events (anterograde amnesia) that can last for several months after a course of ECT treatment. Some of these side effects are substantially reduced by advances in safety and the introduction of controlled-current ECT machines. The utilisation of muscle relaxants, anaesthetics and resuscitation equipment, and electroencephalographic monitoring during the application of ECT are considered now considered routine. In addition, ECT guidelines issued by the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence [4] restrict the use of ECT only to patients with severe symptoms to which "an adequate trial of other treatment options has proven ineffective" (p. 5). The risk associated with ECT has also been reduced with the introduction of refined ECT procedures, such as "maintenance ECT" or "unilateral ECT" (uECT) [5].

It has been suggested that unilateral treatment significantly reduces side effects, especially memory disturbances [6,7]. Despite the well-documented efficacy of unilateral over bilateral ECT, current practice still favours bilateral treatments [8,9]. Unilateral treatment, for the majority of patients, entails that electrodes are placed over the non-dominant, right hemisphere. Given that memory impairment could be reduced by unilateral electrode placement and the fact that placement of electrodes to the dominant hemisphere may cause a greater disturbance in memory compared to non-dominant uECT, determination of cerebral dominance appears to be critical [10]. It is important to note that cerebral dominance here equates to speech dominance, including a lateralised capacity of the cortex to be the locus of language-specific memory traces [11]. Avoiding the stimulation of the speech area will therefore reduce speech dysfunction after ECT. Traditionally, the routine clinical determination of cerebral dominance has been through the assessment of hand, foot and eye dominance. It certainly is an easy and inexpensive approach, but it does not ensure accuracy.

Unilateral ECT and cerebral dominance
The practice of determining cerebral dominance from handedness appears to mirror Broca's view that a person's handedness is opposite to hemispheric language specialisation. This, however, is incorrect, since there is no "mirror-image" cortical language organisation in left-handers. Several attempts to improve cerebral dominance assessment by introducing additional clues such as handwriting posture (i.e. inverted or hooked style versus non-inverted) and familial sinistrality have not substantially improved the prediction as to determination of cerebral dominance [12,13]. For example, the use of hand writing posture to determine speech dominance has been shown to be completely invalid [14-16].

A great majority of left-handers have also an ipsilateral functional specialisation for language (i.e. left hemispheric, as in the majority of right-handers). Although right-handers are more clearly lateralised than left-handers in this regard, a certain proportion of right-handers have language localised in the right-hemisphere. This has been confirmed by various techniques, ranging from the old and invasive procedures such as the intracarotid sodium amytal test and ECT, to the new and more sophisticated techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and functional transcranial Doppler sonography (fTCD). The pooling of empirical data from a number of studies [17-27] which used both old and new, non-invasive techniques to determine cerebral dominance for language is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Percentages of right- and left-handers with speech localised predominantly in the left, right hemisphere, or bilaterally, according to different studies and techniques

Study	Right-handers	Left-handers	
		
	Left	Bilateral	Right	Left	Bilateral	Right	
Milner, 1975*	96	0	4	70	15	15	
Rossi & Rosadini, 1967*	99	1	0	40	10	50	
Pratt & Warrington, 1972#	99	0	1	-	-	-	
Warrington & Pratt, 1973#	-	-	-	70	7	23	
Geffen et al., 1978#	92	0	8	67	0	33	
Geffen & Traub, 1979‡	84	9	7	61	15	24	
Springer et al. 1999&	94	6	0	-	-	-	
Pujol et al. 1999&	96	4	0	76	14	10	
Szaflarski et al. 2002&	-	-	-	78	14	8	
Hund-Georgiadis et al. 2002&	94	0	6	47	12	41	
Knecht et al. 2000†	-	-	4	-	-	27	
* intracarotid sodium amytal test

# ECT

‡ dichotic listening test

&fMRI

† fTCD

From Table 1 one can see that if the hemisphere for uECT treatment were solely ascertained from handedness assessment, then a small proportion of right-handers and a much larger proportion of left-handers would have treatment administered to the dominant hemisphere. One could also see from it that about 3% of right-handers and 25% of left-handers have speech localised in the right hemisphere. This represents the error rate percentage in both groups if uECT was administered to all patients on the right side of the cranium. However, the overall error rate is lower since the incidence of left-handedness is low, and is likely to be in the range of 6.4% to 12.5% [28]. A strict application of the "mirror-image" cortical organisation (i.e. considering left-handers as right-hemisphere dominant and therefore performing left-sided uECT) is even more destructive, illogical, and would increase the error rate. For example, in the survey of the use of ECT by psychiatrists in New Zealand [9], 20% of respondents reported using uECT depending on handedness. Adverse effects caused by determining speech dominance on the basis of handedness would be lower if right-sided ECT was always administered, thus making handedness assessment unnecessary. Given the additional risk of uECT treatment on the dominant hemisphere, which is even more disruptive than bilateral ECT [29], correct identification of cerebral dominance appears to be crucial. The importance of identification of cerebral dominance prior to electrode placement has been highlighted by a number of authors [6,10,28], but routine ECT practice has remained unchanged.

From intracarotid injection to transcranial sonography
Until recently, an accurate determination of speech dominance prior to a course of ECT treatment was possible only through invasive procedures such as intracarotid sodium amytal test [30], also known as the Wada tests, and through the administration of ECT itself – the ECT Test [10]. Lateralisation of language capacity using the Wada test is based on the temporary anaesthesia of one half of the brain. The subject in the study receives sodium amytal – a short-acting anaesthetic – into (usually) the left carotid artery. This causes the left hemisphere to be temporarily rendered dysfunctional. As a result, if this were the patient's dominant hemisphere, the subject's language capacity – primarily speech production – is affected. Conversely, injecting sodium amytal into the right carotid artery leaves this language capacity intact. By using this technique it is possible to identify precisely which hemisphere hosts language, which is considered necessary for patients who are to go through neurosurgical procedures. Although accurate, the use of Wada procedure in a normal healthy population is generally considered as unsuitable. Using ECT for the determination of cerebral dominance is, as mentioned previously, associated with adverse effects and therefore may not be entirely appropriate, although Weiner [31] suggests giving left and right side ECT alternately followed by the administration of a simple verbal performance test and then continuing treatment with the side associated with the better result.

The advent of sophisticated and non-invasive technologies during the 1980s and 1990s has enabled a non-invasive approach to the assessment of speech dominance. One of the most elegant, mobile, and cost effective methods for determining cerebral dominance for speech is functional transcranial Doppler sonography (fTCD). fTCD is increasingly used in both clinical and research settings and is a new and robust technique based on the same principles as fMRI. Subjects in studies using this method are asked to generate as many possible words within 5-second periods after a letter presented on the computer screen cues for word generation. Basically, fTCD measures cerebral blood flow velocity which corresponds to brain activity. The physical foundation for this technique is quite old and is based on the work of the Austrian mathematician and physicist, Christian Doppler (1803–1853), who discovered that the change in pitch results from a shift in the frequency of the sound waves. This means that the speed of a physical object (i.e. blood) can be estimated by measuring the rate of change of pitch. To complete the fTCD procedure, the additional sound produced through the arteries is required.

Recently, it has been argued that fTCD can reliably replace the Wada procedure in patients undergoing brain surgery [32]. The validity of fTCD has been established by comparing fTCD with the Wada test, which is considered as the ultimate (gold standard) test of cerebral lateralisation for speech. Several independent studies [33-35] have found highly significant correlations between these two methods. A high agreement between fTCD and fMRI has also been identified [36] for the assessment of cerebral speech lateralisation.

Conclusion
This review of the literature on ECT and cerebral dominance provides evidence that fTCD represents a valid and safe alternative to invasive techniques for identifying speech lateralisation. It seems therefore, that fTCD, notwithstanding costs, could be used as a standard procedure prior to uECT treatment to determine cerebral dominance, thereby further reducing cognitive side-effects of ECT and possibly making it more acceptable to both patients and clinicians.

Competing interests
none declared.
==== Refs
American Psychiatric Association  The practice of electroconvulsive therapy: Recommendations for treatment, training, and privileging: A task force report of the American Psychiatric Association. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association 1990 
Folkerts HW Michael N Tolle R  Electroconvulsive therapy vs paroxetine in treatment resistant depression – a randomised study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1977 96 334 342 9395150 
Savithasri VE McLoughlin DM  Electroconvulsive therapy – state of the art. Brit J Psychiat 2003 182 8 9 12509311 10.1192/bjp.182.1.8 
National Institute for Clinical Excellence  Guidance on the use of electroconvulsive therapy. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2003 
Wijeratne C Halliday GS Lyndon RW  The present status of electroconvulsive therapy: A systematic review. Med J Australia 1999 171 250 254 10495757 
Zamora EN Kaelbling R  Memory and electroconvulsive therapy. Am J Psychiatry 1965 122 546 554 5835826 
Fleminger JJ Horne DJ Nair NPV Nott PN  Differential effect of unilateral and bilateral ECT. Am J Psychiatry 1970 127 430 436 4918113 
Sackeim HA Prudic J Devanand DP  A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bilateral and unilateral electroconvulsive therapy at different stimulus intensities. Arch Gen Psychiat 2000 57 425 434 10807482 10.1001/archpsyc.57.5.425 
Strachan JA  Electroconvulsive therapy – attitudes and practice in New Zealand. Psychiatric Bulletin 2001 25 467 470 10.1192/pb.25.12.467 
Pratt RTC Warrington EK Halliday AM  Unilateral ECT as a test for cerebral dominance, with a strategy for treating left-handers. Brit J Psychiat 1971 119 79 83 5556664 
Näätänen R Lehtokoski A Lennes M Chenour M Huotllainen M Ilmoniemi RJ Luuk A Allik J Sinkkonen J Alho K  Language specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature 1997 385 432 434 9009189 10.1038/385432a0 
Freeman CPL  Electroconvulsive therapy: Its current clinical use. Brit J Hosp Med 1979 21 281 292 
Allen GS  Letter: Language lateralisation and unilateral ECT. Brit J Psychiat 1980 136 316 7388238 
Warrington EK Pratt RT  The significance of laterality effects. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1981 44 193 196 7229640 
McKeveer WF Van Deventer AD  Inverted handwriting position, language laterality, and the Levy-Nagylaki model of handedness and cerebral organisation. Neuropsychologia 1980 18 99 102 7366831 10.1016/0028-3932(80)90090-1 
Beaumont JG McCarthy R  Dichotic ear asymmetry and writing posture. Neuropsychologia 1981 19 469 472 7266841 10.1016/0028-3932(81)90078-6 
Milner B  Purpura DP, Penry JK, Walters RD  Psychological aspects of focal epilepsy and its neurosurgical managament. Advances in Neurology 1975 8 New York: Raven 
Rossi GF Rosadini G  Millikan CH, Darley FL  Experimental analysis of cerebral dominance in men. Brain mechanisms underlying speech and language New York: Grune 
Pratt RTC Warrington EK  The assessment of cerebral dominance with unilateral ECT. Brit J Psychiat 1972 121 327 328 5073786 
Warrington EK Pratt RT  Language laterality in left handers assessed by unilateral ECT. Neuropsychologia 1973 11 423 428 4758185 10.1016/0028-3932(73)90029-8 
Geffen G Traub E Stierman I  Language laterality assessed by unilateral ECT and dichotic monitoring. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1978 41 354 360 650243 
Geffen G Traub E  Preferred hand and familial sinistrality in dichotic monitoring. Neuropsychologia 1979 17 527 532 514488 10.1016/0028-3932(79)90061-7 
Springer JA Binder JR Hammeke TA Swanson SJ Frost JA Bellgowan PS Brewer CC Perry HM Morris GL Mueller WM  Language dominance in neurologically normal and epilepsy subjects: A functional MRI study. Brain 1999 122 2033 2045 10545389 10.1093/brain/122.11.2033 
Pujol JDJ Losilla J Capdevila A  Cerebral lateralization of language in normal left-handed people studied by functional MRI. Neurology 1999 52 1038 1043 10102425 
Szaflarski JP Binder JR Possing ET McKiernan KA Ward BD Hammeke TA  Language lateralization in left-handed and ambidextrous people: fMRI data. Neurology 2002 59 238 244 12136064 
Hund-Georgiadis M Lex U Friederici AD von Cramon DY  Non-invasive regime for language lateralization in right- and left-handers by means of functional MRI and dichotic listening. Exp Brain Res 2002 145 166 176 12110956 10.1007/s00221-002-1090-0 
Knecht SDB Deppe M Bobe L Lohmann H Flöel A Ringelstein EB Henningsen H  Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain 2000 123 2512 2518 11099452 10.1093/brain/123.12.2512 
Kopelman MD  Speech dominance, handedness and electro-convulsions. Psychol Med 1982 12 667 670 7134323 
Halliday AM Davison K Browne MW Kreeger LC  A comparison of the effects on depression and memory of bilateral ECT and unilateral ECT to the dominant and non-dominant hemispheres. Brit J Psychiat 1968 114 997 1012 4879296 
Wada J Rasmussen T  Intracarotid injection of sodium amytal for the lateralisation of sebrebral speech dominance. J Neurosurg 1960 17 266 282 
Weiner RD  The psychiatric use of electrically induced seizures. Am J Psychiatry 1978 136 1507 1517 389068 
Deppe M Ringelstein EB Knecht S  The investigation of functional brain lateralization by transcranial Doppler sonography. Neuroimage 2004 21 1124 1146 15006680 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.10.016 
Knecht S Deppe M Ebner A Henningsen H Huber T Jokeit H Ringelstein EB  Noninvasive determination of language lateralization by functional transcranial Doppler Sonography: A comparison with the Wada test. Stroke 1998 29 82 86 9445333 
Rihs F Sturzenegger M Gutbrod K Schroth G Mattle HP  Determination of language dominance: Wada test confirms functional transcranial Doppler sonography. Neurology 1999 52 1591 1596 10331683 
Knake S Haag A Hamer HM Dittmer C Bien S Oertel WH Rosenow F  Language lateralisation in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: A comparison of functional transcranial Doppler sonography and the Wada test. Neuroimage 2003 19 1228 1232 12880847 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00174-5 
Deppe M Knecht S Papke K Lohmann H Fleischer H Heindel W Ringelstein EB Henningsen H  Functional MRI measurement of language lateralisation in Wada- tested patients. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2000 20 263 268 10698062 10.1097/00004647-200002000-00006

