Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Marcotte et al. (2012)

Reference

AuthorsMarcotte K, Adrover-Roig D, Damien B, de Préaumont M, Généreux S, Hubert M, Ansaldo AI
TitleTherapy-induced neuroplasticity in chronic aphasia
ReferenceNeuropsychologia 2012; 50: 1776-1786
PMID22564481
DOI10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.001

Participants

LanguageCanadian French
Inclusion criteriaModerate-severe aphasia; anomia
Number of individuals with aphasia9
Number of control participants0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 62 ± 6.0 years, range 50-67 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 5; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 9; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (mean 110.2 ± 92.5 months, range 50-300 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Comprehensive battery
Language evaluationMontreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery, picture naming
Aphasia severityModerate-severe
Aphasia type7 Broca's, 1 Broca's + AoS, 1 Wernicke's + AoS
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 14.6-295.8 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, 3-6 weeks later (after 80% performance on trained items, or 6 weeks)
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?Semantic feature analysis, 1 hour/day, 3 days/week, 3-6 weeks
Is the scanner described?Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?No (total images acquired not stated)
Design typeEvent-related
Total images acquirednot stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (already known items)Word (overt)20YesYes
picture naming (trained items)Word (overt)20NoNo
picture naming (untrained items)Word (overt)40NoNo
viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"Word (overt)20YesYes
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"

Language conditionPicture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials)
Control conditionViewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Unknown
Control activation notes
Contrast notesDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Contrast 2: picture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"

Language conditionPicture naming (known items, correct trials)
Control conditionViewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Unknown
Control activation notes
Contrast notesDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Contrast 3: picture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"

Language conditionPicture naming (trained items, correct trials)
Control conditionViewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Unknown
Control activation notes
Contrast notesDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 1780; different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notesLabels based on figures rather than text

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.005
Cluster extent10 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L somato-motor
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R thalamus
Findings notesLabels based on figures and text

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2
CovariatePrevious Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?No (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.005
Cluster extent10 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings↑ L somato-motor
Findings notesLabel based on figure

Notes

Excluded analysesIndividual analyses of participants with more and less successful recovery