Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Abel et al. (2014)

Reference

AuthorsAbel S, Weiller C, Huber W, Willmes K
TitleNeural underpinnings for model-oriented therapy of aphasic word production
ReferenceNeuropsychologia 2014; 57: 154-165
PMID24686092
DOI10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.010

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaAnomia; no severe AoS or dysarthria
Number of individuals with aphasia14 (plus 9 excluded: 4 for ceiling performance; 5 for technical problems)
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 (median 48 years, range 35-74 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 10; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (median 41 months, range 11-72 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Type only
Language evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia type8 Broca's, 3 Wernicke's, 1 fluent non-classifiable, 1 global, 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA; 2 also had ACA
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, ~6 weeks later (labeled T2 and T3 in paper)
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?Lexical therapy, alternating between weeks with phonological and semantic treatment, 4 weeks; 60 out of the 132 items were trained
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) (trials too close together (~8 s) and insufficient jitter (1-3 s) for event-related design)
Design typeEvent-related
Total images acquired560
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 (semantic trained items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
picture naming (phonological trained items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
picture naming (untrained items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
picture naming (already known items)Word (overt)42YesUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (all conditions) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (all conditions)
Control conditionRest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?No
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?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 notesBut see control data reported in a subsequent paper (Abel et al., 2015)
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: picture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items)

Language conditionPicture naming (trained items)
Control conditionPicture naming (untrained items)
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?Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?No, different
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesTrained items improved more than untrained items
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 notes

Contrast 3: picture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items)

Language conditionPicture naming (semantic trained items)
Control conditionPicture naming (phonological trained items)
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?Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Yes, matched
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 notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming
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?Accuracy is covariate
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 cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ R basal ganglia
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ picture naming accuracy
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?Accuracy is covariate
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 cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L somato-motor
↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L posterior STS
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ L occipital
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items)
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?No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesTrained items improved more than untrained items
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L thalamus
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R thalamus
↑ R basal ganglia
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastPicture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items)
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, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesNo differential effects for semantic vs phonological trained items
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ R superior parietal
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L occipital
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ R precuneus
↓ R occipital
↓ R anterior cingulate
↓ R posterior cingulate
↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with semantic impairment T1 (n = 8) vs with phonological impairment T1 (n = 6)
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 comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)(Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) 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?No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesPhonological patients showed more improvement on trained items
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L somato-motor
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L occipital
↑ L thalamus
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R somato-motor
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) 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?No, different
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 cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L basal ganglia
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) 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?No, different
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 cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses