Electrical Cortical Stimulation for Language Mapping in Epilepsy Surgery—A Systematic Review

Background: Language mapping is a critical component of epilepsy surgery, as postoperative language deficits can significantly impact patients’ quality of life. Electrical stimulation mapping has emerged as a valuable tool for identifying eloquent areas of the brain and minimising post-surgical language deficits. However, recent studies have shown that language deficits can occur despite language mapping, potentially due to variability in stimulation techniques and language task selection. The validity of specific linguistic tasks for mapping different cortical regions remain inadequately characterised. Objective: To systematically evaluate the validity of linguistic tasks used during electrical cortical stimulation (ECS) for language mapping in epilepsy surgery, analyse task-specific responses across cortical regions, and assess current evidence supporting optimal task selection for different brain areas. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus covering articles published from January 2013 to November 2025. Studies on language testing with electrical cortical stimulation in epilepsy surgery cases were screened. Two reviewers independently screened 956 articles, with 45 meeting the inclusion criteria. Data extraction included language tasks, stimulation modalities (ECS, SEEG, ECoG, DECS), cortical regions and language error types. Results: Heterogeneity in language testing techniques across various centres was identified. Visual naming deficits were primarily associated with stimulation of the posterior and basal temporal regions, fusiform gyrus, and parahippocampal gyrus. Auditory naming elicited impairments in the posterior superior and middle temporal gyri, angular gyrus, and fusiform gyrus. Spontaneous speech errors varied, with phonemic dysphasic errors linked to the inferior frontal and supramarginal gyri, and semantic errors arising from superior temporal and perisylvian parietal regions. Conclusions: Task-specific language mapping reveals distinct cortical specialisations, with systematic patterns emerging across studies. However, marked variability in testing protocols and inadequate standardisation limit reproducibility and cross-centre comparisons. Overall, refining and standardising the language task implementation process could lead to improved outcomes, ultimately minimising resection-related language impairment. Future research should validate task–region associations through prospective multicentre studies with long-term outcome assessment.