| Authors | Cardebat D, Démonet JF, De Boissezon X, Marie N, Marié RM, Lambert J, Baron JC, Puel M |
| Title | Behavioral and neurofunctional changes over time in healthy and aphasic subjects: a PET language activation study |
| Reference | Stroke 2003; 34: 2900-2906 |
| PMID | 14615626 |
| DOI | 10.1161/01.str.0000099965.99393.83 |
| Language | French |
| Inclusion criteria | No severe aphasia; no leukoaraiosis |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
| Number of control participants | 6 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 58.4 ± 11.9 years, range 37-73 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (T1: 58 ± 35 days, range 11-113 days; T2: 11.7 ± 1.6 months, range 320-460 days; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | Not stated |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | T1: some prominent symptoms are listed for each patient; T2: not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | 4 L subcortical, 2 L prerolandic, 2 L postrolandic |
| 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: 58 ± 35 days, range 11-113 days; T2: 11.7 ± 1.6 months, range 320-460 days; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens ECAT 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 | Unknown |
| rest | None | 2 | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | Participants were asked to generate words that were semantically related to binaurally presented stimuli; 2 runs involved nouns and 2 involved verbs |
| 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 | 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 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? | No, different |
| 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 | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | .05 |
| Cluster extent | 50 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Nature of inclusive masks unclear |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R cerebellum |
| Findings notes | Based on Figure 2 |
| First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ 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 | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Nature of inclusive masks unclear |
| Findings | ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L occipital ↓ L hippocampus/MTL ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R occipital |
| Findings notes | — |
| Excluded analyses | Aphasia vs control SPM analyses at each time point, because they are not reported in sufficient detail to determine activated regions |
