Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Heiss et al. (1999)

Reference

AuthorsHeiss WD, Kessler J, Thiel A, Ghaemi M, Karbe H
TitleDifferential capacity of left and right hemispheric areas for compensation of poststroke aphasia
ReferenceAnn Neurol 1999; 45: 430-438
PMID10211466
DOI10.1002/1531-8249(199904)45:4<430::aid-ana3>3.0.co;2-p

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaAAT repetition >= 50
Number of individuals with aphasia23
Number of control participants11
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 31-77 years; assume patient's age of 5.6 years is a typo for 56 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 15; females: 8)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 23; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Severity and type
Language evaluationAAT, phonemic fluency
Aphasia severityT1: subcortical: TT median 8 errors, range 0-17 errors; frontal: TT median 21 errors, range 4-40 errors; temporal: TT median 39 errors, range 1-47 errors; T2: subcortical: TT median 1 error, range 0-14 errors; frontal: TT median 8 errors, range 0-34; temporal: TT median 34 errors, range 0-44 errors
Aphasia typeT1: 6 Wernicke's, 5 Broca's, 5 residual aphasia, 4 anomic, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 conduction; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Extent and location
Lesion extentRange 4.3-154.3 cc (probably; units not stated)
Lesion locationL MCA; 9 subcortical, 7 frontal, 7 temporal
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?Not stated
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?N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
noun repetitionWord (overt)4UnknownUnknown
restNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notesInclusion criterion would suggest all patients could do the task, but this is not stated

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: noun repetition vs rest

Language conditionNoun repetition
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?Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Somewhat
Control activation notesL frontal and bilateral temporal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical damage (n = 9) 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L mid temporal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with frontal damage (n = 7) 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 7) 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R mid temporal
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9)
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L posterior STG
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T1 (n = 7)
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9)
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 7

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T2 (n = 7)
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 8

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 9

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with frontal damage T1 (n = 7) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 10

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434; L IFG pars opercularis noted as different in text despite being significant in both groups
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 11

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 12

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with frontal damage T2 (n = 7) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 13

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 14

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and good recovery (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 15

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and poor recovery (n = 5) 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 16

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T1 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T1 (n = 5)
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 17

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T2 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T2 (n = 5)
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
How many ROIs are there?14
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses