Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Crinion et al. (2006)

Reference

AuthorsCrinion JT, Warburton EA, Lambon-Ralph MA, Howard D, Wise RJ
TitleListening to narrative speech after aphasic stroke: the role of the left anterior temporal lobe
ReferenceCereb Cortex 2006; 16: 1116-1125
PMID16251507
DOI10.1093/cercor/bhj053

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia24
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 (range 32-85 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 18; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 24; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?No (mean 32 months, range 2-204 months; combines subacute and chronic patients)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Comprehensive battery
Language evaluationCAT (missing in two participants)
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location6 L but no temporal damage, 9 L temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex, 9 L temporal damage including anterior temporal cortex
Participants notesResults of control participants previously reported in Crinion et al. (2003)

Imaging

ModalityPET (rCBF)
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 (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (16 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (8 patients))
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?Yes
Design typePET
Total images acquired12-16
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 notestwo different scanners used for patients, but not for controls

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speechNone6-8N/AN/A
listening to reversed speechNone6-8N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech

Language conditionListening to narrative speech
Control conditionListening to reversed speech
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?Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?N/A, no timeable task
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?Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?Somewhat
Control activation notes11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 6) 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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all included patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 18) 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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all included patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
CovariateAuditory sentence comprehension (CAT)
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsSame result obtained with or without excluding one outlier; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings↑ L anterior temporal
Findings notesMore activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
CovariateTime post onset
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsTwo other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs with no temporal lobe damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) (n = 4)
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsTwo other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notesPatients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsCircular because ROI defined in one group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notesLarge difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
CovariateAuditory single word comprehension (CAT)
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?N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsTwo other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
FindingsNone
Findings notesR = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power

Notes

Excluded analyses