Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a)

Reference

AuthorsSkipper-Kallal LM, Lacey EH, Xing S, Turkeltaub PE
TitleRight hemisphere remapping of naming functions depends on lesion size and location in poststroke aphasia
ReferenceNeural Plast 2017a; 2017: 8740353
PMID28168061
DOI10.1155/2017/8740353

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria10% accuracy on scanner task
Number of individuals with aphasia39 (plus 10 excluded: < 10% accuracy in scanner)
Number of control participants37
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?Yes (29 of the participants overlap with the other Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017) paper)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 59.8 ± 10.0 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 26; females: 13)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 33; left: 4; other: 2; missing for 2 participants)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (mean 52.9 ± 51.4 months, range 6.3-255.7 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Comprehensive battery
Language evaluationWAB, PNT
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia type23 anomic, 11 Broca's, 3 conduction, 1 transcortical sensory, 1 Wernicke's
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
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)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?No* (moderate limitation) (total images acquired not stated; separation of adjacent events (covert and overt naming) will be limited because of the small amount of jitter in their timing (only 1500 ms))
Design typeEvent-related
Total images acquired~450 but not stated
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?No* (moderate limitation) (not stated but see Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b))
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?Yes
Imaging notesat each voxel, individuals with lesions to that voxel were excluded from analysis

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (prepare to name)Word (covert)32YesYes
picture naming (produce the name)Word (overt)32YesYes
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notesCovert and overt naming were modeled as two phases of each trial (there was a cue to produce the name after 7500-9000 ms); 14 participants who were more impaired were given easier pictures to name; patients who named less than 10% of items correctly were excluded

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials)
Control conditionRest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?Yes
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?Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?No
Control activation notesBilateral frontal and occipito-temporal, but not posterior temporal
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials)
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?Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?No
Control activation notesBilateral frontal and occipito-temporal, but not posterior temporal; speech motor activation not readily apparent
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
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?Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L cerebellum
↑ L thalamus
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R insula
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R basal ganglia
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L orbitofrontal
↓ L intraparietal sulcus
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notesBased on Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
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?Yes, correct trials only
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 with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L somato-motor
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R insula
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R posterior MTG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L mid temporal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L cerebellum
↓ L thalamus
↓ L hippocampus/MTL
Findings notesBased on Table 3

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion volume
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L occipital
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R occipital
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R brainstem
↑ R basal ganglia
Findings notesBased on Table 4, except for R frontal activations which are missing from the table, and were added based on the figure

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion volume
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, correct trials only
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 with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L somato-motor
↑ L precuneus
↑ L occipital
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R mid temporal
↑ R occipital
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R basal ganglia
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
Findings notesBased on Table 4, except for bilateral occipital activations which are missing from the table, and were added based on the figure

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with IPS damage (n not stated) vs without IPS damage (n not stated)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with insula damage (n = 18) vs without insula damage (n = 21)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
Findings↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 16) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 23)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
Findings↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with motor cortex damage (n = 24) vs without motor cortex damage (n = 15)
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, correct trials only
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 with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 9

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with STS damage (n not stated) vs without STS damage (n not stated)
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, correct trials only
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 with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 5.0.6
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 16)
CovariatePNT
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?R DLPFC
How are the ROI(s) defined?Peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 23)
CovariatePNT
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?R DLPFC
How are the ROI(s) defined?Peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with insula damage (n = 18)
CovariatePNT
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?R DLPFC
How are the ROI(s) defined?Peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia without insula damage (n = 21)
CovariatePNT
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?R DLPFC
How are the ROI(s) defined?Peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with IPS damage (n not stated) vs without IPS damage (n not stated)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?5
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IPS; (2) L insula; (3) L IFG pars opercularis; (4) R IPS; (5) R insula
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with insula damage (n = 18) vs without insula damage (n = 21)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?5
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IPS; (2) L insula; (3) L IFG pars opercularis; (4) R IPS; (5) R insula
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 7

First level contrastPicture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 16) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 23)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesCovert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?5
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L IPS; (2) L insula; (3) L IFG pars opercularis; (4) R IPS; (5) R insula
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 8

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with motor cortex damage (n = 24) vs without motor cortex damage (n = 15)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?4
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L motor; (2) L pSTS; (3) R motor; (4) R pSTS
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
Findings↑ R somato-motor
Findings notes

ROI analysis 9

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with STS damage (n not stated) vs without STS damage (n not stated)
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?4
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L motor; (2) L pSTS; (3) R motor; (4) R pSTS
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
Findings↓ R somato-motor
Findings notes

ROI analysis 10

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia without motor cortex damage (n = 15)
CovariatePNT
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?R motor
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm sphere around control peak
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 11

First level contrastPicture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with motor cortex damage (n = 24)
CovariatePNT
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, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?R motor
How are the ROI(s) defined?5 mm sphere around control peak
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsLesion volume covariate
Findings↑ R somato-motor
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses