What's your name again? A review of the superior longitudinal and arcuate fasciculus evolving nomenclature

Studies of the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF) have multiplied in recent decades owing to methodological advances, but the absence of a convention for nomenclature remains a source of confusion. Here, we have reviewed existing nomenclatures in the context of the research studies that generated them and we have identified their agreements and disagreements. A literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Web-of-Science, Embase, and a review of seminal publications, without restrictions regarding publication date. Our search revealed that diffusion imaging, autoradiography, and fiber dissection have been the main methods contributing to tract designation. The first two have been particularly influential in systematizing the horizontal elements distant from the lateral sulcus. Twelve approaches to naming were identified, eight of them differing considerably from each other. The terms SLF and arcuate fasciculus (AF) were often used as synonyms until the second half of the 20th century. During the last 15 years, this has ceased to be the case in a growing number of publications. The term AF has been used to refer to the assembly of three different segments, or exclusively to long frontotemporal fibers. Similarly, the term SLF has been employed to denote the whole superior longitudinal associative system, or only the horizontal frontoparietal parts. As only partial correspondence can be identified among the available nomenclatures, and in the absence of an official designation of all anatomical structures that can be encountered in clinical practice, a high level of vigilance regarding the effectiveness of every oral or written act of communication is mandatory.

Automated summary

Studies on the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF) have increased in recent years due to methodological advances, but the lack of a standardized nomenclature continues to cause confusion. Different methods have been used for tract designation, resulting in a lack of consensus in naming conventions. In clinical practice, vigilance is required when communicating due to the partial correspondence among available nomenclatures.