| Authors | Qiu WH, Wu HX, Yang QL, Kang Z, Chen ZC, Li K, Qiu GR, Xie CQ, Wan GF, Chen SQ |
| Title | Evidence of cortical reorganization of language networks after stroke with subacute Broca's aphasia: a blood oxygenation level dependent-functional magnetic resonance imaging study |
| Reference | Neural Regen Res 2017; 128: 109-117 |
| PMID | 28250756 |
| DOI | 10.4103/1673-5374.198996 |
| Language | Mandarin |
| Inclusion criteria | Broca's aphasia |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 |
| Number of control participants | 10 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 55.9 ± 13.4 years, range 40-70 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 1-3 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB |
| Aphasia severity | Moderate-severe |
| Aphasia type | All Broca's |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Not at all |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | fMRI |
| 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 (GE Signa 1.5 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (only three pictures were named per 30-second block) |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 186 |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
| Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | No (not described) |
| Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (no description of model fitting) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (not described) |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Are the conditions clearly described? | Yes |
| Condition | Response type | Repetitions | All groups could do? | All individuals could do? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| picture naming | Word (overt) | 9 | Unknown | Unknown |
| rest | None | 9 | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | — |
| Are the contrasts clearly described? | Yes |
| Language condition | Picture naming |
| Control condition | Rest |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Somewhat L-lateralized frontal and anterior temporal language activations, but the majority of activation is in unexpected regions |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Are the analyses clearly described? | No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below) |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-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? | Unknown, not reported |
| 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 | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .05 |
| Cluster extent | 10 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | In the footnote to Table 2, there is a reference to FWE correction with Monte Carlo simulation, but this is not described in the text, and the values in the table appear to be inconsistent with that |
| Findings | ↑ L intraparietal sulcus ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ L occipital ↑ L thalamus ↑ R inferior parietal lobule ↑ R intraparietal sulcus ↑ R precuneus ↑ R anterior temporal ↓ L IFG ↓ L orbitofrontal ↓ L somato-motor ↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction |
| Findings notes | Findings are based on coordinates, which in many cases do not match the labels assigned in the paper |
| Excluded analyses | Comparisons between activation volumes in the left and right hemispheres in the two groups, because not described in sufficient detail |
