| Authors | Sandberg CW, Bohland JW, Kiran S |
| Title | Changes in functional connectivity related to direct training and generalization effects of a word finding treatment in chronic aphasia |
| Reference | Brain Lang 2015; 150: 103-116 |
| PMID | 26398158 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.09.002 |
| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59 years, range 47-75 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 3) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 10; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 7-134 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, subtests from PALPA, PPT, CLQT |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 41.7-99.2 |
| Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 2 conduction, 1 Broca's, 1 transcortical motor |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Range 0.3-256.0 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| 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, up to 10 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Semantic feature-based treatment, 2 hours/day, 2 days/week, up to 10 weeks (depending on when criterion reached) |
| 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) (total images acquired not stated; ITI of 1-3 s seems short) |
| 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 | — |
| Are the conditions clearly described? | Yes |
| Condition | Response type | Repetitions | All groups could do? | All individuals could do? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| concreteness judgment (abstract words) | Button press | 60 | Yes | No |
| concreteness judgment (concrete words) | Button press | 60 | Yes | Yes |
| letter string judgment | Button press | 60 | Unknown | Unknown |
| rest | None | implicit baseline | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | 2 patients below chance on abstract words per supplementary table 2 |
| Are the contrasts clearly described? | No (see specific limitation(s) below) |
| Language condition | Concreteness judgment (abstract words, correct trials) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
| 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 | The concreteness judgment task was compared to the letter string judgment task to define ROIs for connectivity analysis, but the group analysis meeting criteria for this review appears to be based only on comparisons between time points on the concreteness judgment conditions |
| Language condition | Concreteness judgment (concrete words, correct trials) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
| 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 | The concreteness judgment task was compared to the letter string judgment task to define ROIs for connectivity analysis, but the group analysis meeting criteria for this review appears to be based only on comparisons between time points on the concreteness judgment conditions |
| Are the analyses clearly described? | No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below) |
| First level contrast | Concreteness judgment (abstract words, correct trials) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with response to treatment (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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | None |
| Statistical details | Images show peaks instead of activations |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L angular gyrus ↑ L precuneus ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ L posterior cingulate ↑ L basal ganglia ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Concreteness judgment (concrete words, correct trials) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with generalization of treatment effects to concrete words (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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | None |
| Statistical details | Images show peaks instead of activations |
| Findings | ↑ L insula ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L precuneus ↑ L occipital ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R posterior cingulate |
| Findings notes | — |
| Excluded analyses | Connectivity analyses due to degree of complexity, which precluded assessment |
