Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Crinion & Price (2005)

Reference

Authors	Crinion J, Price CJ
Title	Right anterior superior temporal activation predicts auditory sentence comprehension following aphasic stroke
Reference	Brain 2005; 128: 2858-2871
PMID	16234297
DOI	10.1093/brain/awh659

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	17
Number of control participants	18
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 62 ± 2.7 SEM years, range 34-75 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 12; females: 5)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 17; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 4-125 months; aphasia with temporal damage (n=8) mean 41 months; aphasia without temporal damage (n=9) mean 48 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	CAT
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

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?	No (Siemens 1.5 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (the calculated duration of the stimuli, the calculated duration of the acquisitions, and the stated duration of the acquisitions yield three different numbers)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	460
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 notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speech	None	32	N/A	N/A
listening to reversed speech	None	8	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

A post-scan surprise recognition test asked whether or not 38 phrases had occurred in any story; patients answered 12-33 of these questions correctly; controls answered 24-37 correctly; also note that all patients performed above chance on CAT auditory sentence comprehension (73%+ accuracy)

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Listening to narrative speech
Control condition	Listening 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?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Bilateral (L > R) temporal, L IFG and L dorsal precentral
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (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 analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L dorsal precentral ↓ R somato-motor
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) 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 analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STS ↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
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 analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
Covariate	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 analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients with temporal lobe damage
Findings	↑ L posterior STS ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	Patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the L posterior STS and R mid STS

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8)
Covariate	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 analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients without temporal lobe damage
Findings	↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	Patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the R mid STS

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9)
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 analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and the sentence comprehension measure from the CAT, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The voxelwise threshold was p < .001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Activity in the L posterior STS was positively correlated with sentence comprehension in patients without temporal lobe damage, but not in patients with temporal lobe damage

Complex analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal damage (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 analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between patients without temporal damage and controls, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) 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 analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between patients with temporal damage and controls, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9)
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 analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

An analysis involving associations between activations and story recognition memory because it included both controls and patients