Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Tyler et al. (2011)

Reference

Authors	Tyler LK, Marslen-Wilson WD, Randall B, Wright P, Devereux BJ, Zhuang J, Papoutsi M, Stamatakis EA
Title	Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: function, structure and behaviour in patients with left hemisphere damage
Reference	Brain 2011; 134: 415-431
PMID	21278407
DOI	10.1093/brain/awq369

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	14
Number of control participants	15
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (not stated, but it seems like most of the patients also participated in Tyler et al. (2010))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56 years, range 34-77 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 7 years, > 1.5 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	Sentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke

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?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (run length not stated; length of stimuli not described)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	not stated but 1059 per Papoutsi et al. (2011)
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 (lacks explanation of event durations)
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 unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to filler sentences	None	126	N/A	N/A
listening to "musical rain"	None	42	N/A	N/A
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate)
Control condition	Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
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?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal and parietal; R frontal (but L > R); no L temporal
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Control condition	Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
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?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal and parietal; no L temporal
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 3: listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control condition	Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
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?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal, temporal and parietal, R frontal (but L > R)
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 4: listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
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?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal and temporal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
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?	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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
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?	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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
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?	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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG
Findings notes	Lack of patient activation in pMTG implied in text, but this activation looks fairly similar in patients and controls (c.f. Figure 3C vs 2C)

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
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?	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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG ↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences)
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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	Also L pMTG but this did not reach significance

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on sentence-picture matching task
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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	30 (units not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R insula ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on word monitoring task
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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	10 (units not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R insula ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
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	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences)
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	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	AAL
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Difference in percentage of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
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	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	AAL
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

It is mentioned in the supplementary material that there was no correlation between activation and lexical (non-syntactic) errors