Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Hallam et al. (2018)

Reference

AuthorsHallam GP, Thompson HE, Hymers M, Millman RE, Rodd JM, Lambon Ralph MA, Smallwood J, Jefferies E
TitleTask-based and resting-state fMRI reveal compensatory network changes following damage to left inferior frontal gyrus
ReferenceCortex 2018; 99: 150-165
PMID29223933
DOI10.1016/j.cortex.2017.10.004

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteriaSemantic aphasia; left frontal damage (+ other regions, typically)
Number of individuals with aphasia14
Number of control participants16
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 61 ± 11 years, range 38-80 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 5; females: 9)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (range 11-264 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Comprehensive battery
Language evaluationCambridge semantic battery, three additional semantic tasks, connected speech words per minute, repetition from PALPA
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia type6 anomic, 2 Broca's, 2 global, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 mixed transcortical, 1 not stated
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL IFG plus other MCA regions; vATL and pMTG spared
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?
Is the scanner described?Yes (GE Signa HDx 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?Yes
Design typeEvent-related
Total images acquired348
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 notesinterleaved silent steady state imaging

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to high ambiguity sentencesNone24N/AN/A
listening to low ambiguity sentencesNone24N/AN/A
listening to spectrally rotated speechNone24N/AN/A
pressing a button to a visual cueButton press9UnknownUnknown
restNone12N/AN/A
Conditions notesAll but one patient had good single word comprehension, which was argued to support sentence comprehension

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to high or low ambiguity sentences vs listening to spectrally rotated speech

Language conditionListening to high or low ambiguity sentences
Control conditionListening to spectrally rotated speech
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?N/A, no timeable task
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 notesHard to evaluate contrast because a "semantic mask" is used but is not described in detail
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences

Language conditionListening to high ambiguity sentences
Control conditionListening to low ambiguity sentences
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?N/A, no timeable task
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

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to high or low ambiguity sentences vs listening to spectrally rotated speech
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia vs control
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?2
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L vATL; (2) L pMTG
How are the ROI(s) defined?Functional coordinates in literature
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsANOVA revealed main effect of group (patient vs control), confirmed in follow-up tests for each ROI
Findings↑ L posterior MTG
↑ L anterior temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia vs control
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?2
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L vATL; (2) L pMTG
How are the ROI(s) defined?Functional coordinates in literature
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsNo interaction of group by condition
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastListening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia (subset with resting state data, n = 10) vs control (subset with resting state data, n = 10)
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisComplex
Statistical detailsA whole brain analysis was carried out to identify regions where the groups differed in the extent to which the strength of functional connectivity at rest from L pMTG was associated with the difference in signal between the high ambiguity and low ambiguity conditions in the same ROI. Thresholding is not described and cluster extent is not reported.
FindingsOther
Findings notesThere was a functional activation by group interaction in the L aSTG. For controls, there was a positive association between L pMTG activity and functional connectivity to aSTG, while for the patients, there was a negative association.

Complex analysis 2

First level contrastListening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia (subset with resting state data, n = 10) vs control (subset with resting state data, n = 10)
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisComplex
Statistical detailsA whole brain analysis was carried out to identify regions where the groups differed in the extent to which the strength of functional connectivity at rest from L pMTG was associated with the difference in signal between the high ambiguity and low ambiguity conditions in the same ROI. Thresholding is not described.
FindingsNone
Findings notesNo interaction is reported; both groups showed a correlation between L vATL activity and functional connectivity to a ventral IFG region

Notes

Excluded analysesAnalyses involving resting state data, except for those that also involved task-based data