Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Kristinsson et al. (2019)

Reference

AuthorsKristinsson S, Yourganov G, Xiao F, Bonilha L, Stark BC, Rorden C, Basilakos A, Fridriksson J
TitleBrain-derived neurotrophic factor genotype-specific differences in cortical activation in chronic aphasia
ReferenceJ Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62: 3923-3936
PMID31756156
DOI10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-rsnp-19-0021

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria< 80% on PNT; able to name at least 5 out of 40 items during fMRI; WAB-R spontaneous speech ≥ 2; WAB-R auditory comprehension ≥ 2
Number of individuals with aphasia87
Number of control participants0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?Yes (65 were previously included in Fridriksson et al. (2018), a tDCS study)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (typical BDNF genotype group mean 59.6 ± 11.2 years, range 29-77 years; atypical BDNF genotype group mean 57.7 ± 10.9 years, range 30-76 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 58; females: 29)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 87; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (typical BDNF genotype group: mean 44.0 ± 38.7 months; atypical BDNF genotype group: mean 34.5 ± 36.9 months; all participants > 6 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Severity and type
Language evaluationWAB, PNT, PPT
Aphasia severityTypical BDNF genotype group: AQ mean 64.2 ± 20.3; atypical BDNF genotype group: AQ mean 54.3 ± 21.0
Aphasia typeTypical BDNF genotype group: 25 Broca's, 12 anomic, 11 conduction, 2 transcortical motor aphasia, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global; atypical BDNF genotype group: 16 Broca's, 6 anomic, 6 conduction, 3 global, 3 Wernicke's
First stroke only?No
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentTypical BDNF genotype group: 121.4 ± 73.2 cc; atypical BDNF genotype group: 142.2 ± 88.4 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
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 (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla or Siemens Prisma 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?Yes
Design typeEvent-related
Total images acquired60
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (overt)40YesUnknown
viewing abstract picturesNone20N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures

Language conditionPicture naming
Control conditionViewing abstract pictures
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?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?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with typical genotype (n = 53) vs atypical genotype (n = 34)
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 notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volume
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM12
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesComparisons between numbers of voxels activated, because not regionally specific and not described in sufficient detail