Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Kiran et al. (2015)

Reference

AuthorsKiran S, Meier EL, Kapse KJ, Glynn PA
TitleChanges in task-based effective connectivity in language networks following rehabilitation in post-stroke patients with aphasia
ReferenceFront Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 316
PMID26106314
DOI10.3389/fnhum.2015.00316

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaImpaired naming
Number of individuals with aphasia8
Number of control participants8
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 58 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 7; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (range 15-157 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Severity only
Language evaluationWAB, BNT, PPT, CLQT
Aphasia severityAQ range 48.0-97.2
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extent24.2-431.6 cc
Lesion locationL MCA except for one patient with R MCA and aphasia
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, ~10 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?Semantic feature-based treatment, 10 weeks
Is the scanner described?Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?No* (moderate limitation) (picture and scrambled conditions have different durations; ITI 2-4 s seems too short; 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?Yes
Imaging notescontrols were run on two different sets of parameters, neither of which was the same as the patients

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (trained)Word (overt)40UnknownUnknown
picture naming (untrained)Word (overt)40UnknownUnknown
viewing scrambled images and saying "skip"Word (overt)80UnknownUnknown
semantic feature decisionButton press40UnknownUnknown
visual decisionButton press40UnknownUnknown
Conditions notes

Contrasts

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

Contrast 1: picture naming (trained) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "skip"

Language conditionPicture naming (trained)
Control conditionViewing scrambled images and saying "skip"
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?Unknown, not reported
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?Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Somewhat
Control activation notesOverlap of individual participant activation maps; somewhat lateralized frontal and temporal, but also bilateral occipito-temporal
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: semantic feature decision vs visual decision

Language conditionSemantic feature decision
Control conditionVisual decision
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?Unknown, not reported
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?Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Somewhat
Control activation notesOverlap of individual participant activation maps; somewhat lateralized frontal and temporal, but also bilateral occipito-temporal
Contrast notesThis contrast inferred but not described

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (trained) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "skip"
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?Unknown, not reported
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
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsAnalyses were carried out in individual patients at p < .001, uncorrected; regions were considered activated when they were found in 6 or more (out of 8) patients
Findings↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R posterior MTG
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notesRegions are approximate since only broad regions are described in Table 6

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastSemantic feature decision vs visual decision
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?Unknown, not reported
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
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsAnalyses were carried out in individual patients at p < .001, uncorrected; regions were considered activated when they were found in 6 or more (out of 8) patients
Findings↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R posterior MTG
Findings notesRegions are approximate since only broad regions are described in Table 7

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) DCM analyses; (2) activation for untrained categories, since this is reported only for individual patients in supplementary material