Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Thiel et al. (2013)

Reference

AuthorsThiel A, Hartmann A, Rubi-Fessen I, Anglade C, Kracht L, Weiduschat N, Kessler J, Rommel T, Heiss WD
TitleEffects of noninvasive brain stimulation on language networks and recovery in early poststroke aphasia
ReferenceStroke 2013; 44: 2240-2246
PMID23813984
DOI10.1161/strokeaha.111.000574

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia24 (plus 6 excluded: 4 did not tolerate MRI or PET scans; 2 TMS device was defective)
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 (rTMS group: mean 69.8 ± 8.0 years; sham group: mean 71.2 ± 7.8 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?No
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 24; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Severity and type
Language evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityT1: rTMS group: AAT sum of scores mean 251.5 ± 32.4; sham group: mean 251.1 ± 39.5; T2 not stated
Aphasia typeT1: rTMS group: 7 Wernicke's, 3 amnestic, 2 global, 1 Broca's; sham group: 5 Wernicke's, 3 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRTMS group: 233 ± 197 cc; sham group: 244 ± 243 cc; lesion extent in images appears much smaller than the stated volumes
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?Longitudinal—mixed
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?T1: pre-treatment/subacute (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days post onset; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days post onset); T2 post-treatment, ~2.5 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?RTMS group: inhibitory rTMS over the R IFG pars triangularis + SLT for 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; control group: sham TMS + SLT
Is the scanner described?Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?Yes
Design typePET
Total images acquired8
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?
verb generationWord (overt)4UnknownUnknown
restNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language conditionVerb generation
Control conditionRest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?N/A, tasks not comparable
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?Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Unknown
Control activation notesCites Weiduschat et al. (2011) which in turn cites Herholz et al. (1996) which provides some minimal control data
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)(Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) 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 detailsQualitative comparison on p. 2244
Findings↑ L IFG
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R IFG
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notesApproximate interpretation of qualitative patterns shown in Figure 3; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)(Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?Language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsActual LIs are not reported, only change in LI
Findings↑ LI (language network)
Findings notesT1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ AAT total score
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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?Language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsModel did not include treatment group (rTMS vs sham)
Findings↑ LI (language network)
Findings notesPatients who improved more showed a greater leftward shift of activation; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

Notes

Excluded analyses