| Authors | de Boissezon X, Marie N, Castel-Lacanal E, Marque P, Bezy C, Gros H, Lotterie JA, Cardebat D, Puel M, Demonet JF |
| Title | Good recovery from aphasia is also supported by right basal ganglia: a longitudinal controlled PET study |
| Reference | Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45: 547-558 |
| PMID | 20032914 |
| DOI | N/A |
| Language | French |
| Inclusion criteria | Only part of L MCA; able to perform word generation; no severe aphasia |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 13 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (7 out of 13 patients appear to represent the same data reported in de Boissezon et al. (2005)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 31.2-74.2 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 13; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 64 ± 32 days; T2: mean 11.8 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | T1: 3 transcortical motor, 2 anomic, 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 2 Wernicke's, 1 conduction, 1 agrammatic; T2: not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Range 0.9-43.4 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA (7 subcortical, 6 cortical) |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: mean 64 ± 32 days; T2: mean 11.8 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Community SLT; 45 minutes/day, 1-3 days/week |
| 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 type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 6 |
| 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) |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Are the conditions clearly described? | Yes |
| Condition | Response type | Repetitions | All groups could do? | All individuals could do? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| word generation | Word (overt) | 4 | Yes | Yes |
| rest | None | 2 | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | — |
| Are the contrasts clearly described? | Yes |
| Language condition | Word generation |
| Control condition | Rest |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Cardebat et al. (2003); bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Are the analyses clearly described? | No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below) |
| First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with "good recovery" (n = 6) T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (the "good recovery" group showed more improvement than the "poor recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally) |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | P = 0.07 |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking |
| Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R occipital ↑ R thalamus ↑ R basal ganglia ↓ L cerebellum |
| Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 5 |
| First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with "poor recovery" (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (the "poor recovery" group showed less improvement than the "good recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally) |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| 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 | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking |
| Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R cerebellum ↓ R basal ganglia |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | 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 analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Each patient's two sessions may be entered into the model without accounting for the dependence between them |
| Findings | ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital ↓ L cerebellum |
| Findings notes | — |
| Excluded analyses | — |
