Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Fridriksson et al. (2012a)

Reference

AuthorsFridriksson J, Hubbard HI, Hudspeth SG, Holland AL, Bonilha L, Fromm D, Rorden C
TitleSpeech entrainment enables patients with Broca's aphasia to produce fluent speech
ReferenceBrain 2012a; 135: 3815-3829
PMID23250889
DOI10.1093/brain/aws301

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaBroca's aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia10 (plus 3 excluded: 1 due to a metal implant; 2 for severely non-fluent speech)
Number of control participants20
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (mean 56.9 ± 9.2 years, range 45-75 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?No (males: 9; females: 4; control sex not matched)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?Yes (right: 12; left: 1)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?Yes (mean 63.8 ± 64.3 months, range 10-261 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?Comprehensive battery
Language evaluationWAB, BNT, AoS from ABA
Aphasia severityAQ mean 48.5 ± 20.6, range 20.9-73.5
Aphasia typeBroca's
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notesDemographic data includes excluded patients

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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?No (Siemens 3 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?No* (moderate limitation) (it appears that each of the three conditions was presented in a separate run)
Design typeEvent-related
Total images acquired180?
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?No (not described clearly)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?Yes
Imaging notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?No (rest condition implied but not described)
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)Sentence (overt)30 (?)YesUnknown
listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentencesSentence (overt)30 (?)YesUnknown
listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouthNone30 (?)N/AN/A
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences

Language conditionListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)
Control conditionListening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notesBehavioral data outside the scanner suggest not matched, but in-scanner behavioral data not reported
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?No
Control activation notesControl and patient data are combined; this contrast activates bilateral anterior insula and posterior MTG, slightly more extensive on the L
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest

Language conditionListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)
Control conditionRest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?No
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 notesRest condition implied but not explicitly described

Contrast 3: listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences vs rest

Language conditionListening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Control conditionRest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?No
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 notesRest condition implied but not explicitly described

Contrast 4: listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest

Language conditionListening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth
Control conditionRest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?No
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, 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?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 notesRest condition implied but not explicitly described

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia T1 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
Findings↑ L angular gyrus
↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notesBased on coordinates in Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
Findings↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ L supramarginal gyrus
Findings notesSome labels changed based on coordinates

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastListening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth 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?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 volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Analysis classCross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)Aphasia T1 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?Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
How many ROIs are there?6
What are the ROI(s)?(1) L anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (2) R anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (3) Broca's area; (4) L MTG; (5) L BA 37; (6) R BA 37
How are the ROI(s) defined?Regions activated in both groups considered together
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThere were no interactions of group by condition; two regions showed main effects of group but this is not pertinent to the contrast
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses