Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

de Boissezon et al. (2005)

Reference

Authorsde Boissezon X, Démonet JF, Puel M, Marie N, Raboyeau G, Albucher JF, Chollet F, Cardebat D
TitleSubcortical aphasia: a longitudinal PET study
ReferenceStroke 2005; 36: 1467-1473
PMID15933252
DOI10.1161/01.str.0000169947.08972.4f

Participants

LanguageFrench
Inclusion criteriaSubcortical stroke; no severe aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia7
Number of control participants0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 52.4 ± 13 years, range 31-69 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (males: 7; females: 0)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 7; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Type only
Language evaluationMontreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeT1: 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's; T2: 4 recovered, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor; 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location5 L non-thalamic subcortical, 2 L thalamic
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?Not stated
Is the scanner described?Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR+)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?Yes
Design typePET
Total images acquired6
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?No (lesion impact not addressed; minimal due to lesions being small and subcortical)
Imaging notes

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word generationWord (overt)4YesYes
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesNouns in two runs, verbs in two runs, combined here because they were combined in analysis

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language conditionWord generation
Control conditionRest
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 contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
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?Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesNo significant correlation between time post onset and accuracy
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L orbitofrontal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R occipital
Findings notesMore activity with longer time post onset; based on coordinates in Table 3a

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateWord generation accuracy T1
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?Accuracy is covariate
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 based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L precuneus
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ R insula
↑ R posterior STG
Findings notesBased on coordinates in Table 3b

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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?No, different
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 based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extent100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsDescription of masking unclear, but seems to be inclusively masked with T1, which seems inappropriate
Findings↑ L insula
↑ L posterior STG
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R cerebellum
Findings notesBased on coordinates in Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ word generation accuracy
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?Accuracy is covariate
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 based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent20 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L mid temporal
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R cerebellum
Findings notesBased on coordinates in Table 3c

Notes

Excluded analyses