| Authors | Kiran S, Meier EL, Kapse KJ, Glynn PA |
| Title | Changes in task-based effective connectivity in language networks following rehabilitation in post-stroke patients with aphasia |
| Reference | Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 316 |
| PMID | 26106314 |
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00316 |
| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Impaired naming |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
| Number of control participants | 8 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 58 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 15-157 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, PPT, CLQT |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 48.0-97.2 |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | 24.2-431.6 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA except for one patient with R MCA and aphasia |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | fMRI |
| 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, ~10 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Semantic feature-based treatment, 10 weeks |
| 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) (picture and scrambled conditions have different durations; ITI 2-4 s seems too short; total images acquired not stated) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 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? | Yes |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | controls were run on two different sets of parameters, neither of which was the same as the patients |
| Are the conditions clearly described? | Yes |
| Condition | Response type | Repetitions | All groups could do? | All individuals could do? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| picture naming (trained) | Word (overt) | 40 | Unknown | Unknown |
| picture naming (untrained) | Word (overt) | 40 | Unknown | Unknown |
| viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" | Word (overt) | 80 | Unknown | Unknown |
| semantic feature decision | Button press | 40 | Unknown | Unknown |
| visual decision | Button press | 40 | Unknown | Unknown |
| Conditions notes | — |
| Are the contrasts clearly described? | No (see specific limitation(s) below) |
| Language condition | Picture naming (trained) |
| Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" |
| 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? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Overlap of individual participant activation maps; somewhat lateralized frontal and temporal, but also bilateral occipito-temporal |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Semantic feature decision |
| Control condition | Visual decision |
| 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? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Overlap of individual participant activation maps; somewhat lateralized frontal and temporal, but also bilateral occipito-temporal |
| Contrast notes | This contrast inferred but not described |
| Are the analyses clearly described? | Yes |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Analyses were carried out in individual patients at p < .001, uncorrected; regions were considered activated when they were found in 6 or more (out of 8) patients |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L dorsal precentral ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L angular gyrus ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R IFG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R posterior MTG ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
| Findings notes | Regions are approximate since only broad regions are described in Table 6 |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision vs visual decision |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Analyses were carried out in individual patients at p < .001, uncorrected; regions were considered activated when they were found in 6 or more (out of 8) patients |
| Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L dorsal precentral ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R IFG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R posterior MTG |
| Findings notes | Regions are approximate since only broad regions are described in Table 7 |
| Excluded analyses | (1) DCM analyses; (2) activation for untrained categories, since this is reported only for individual patients in supplementary material |
