| Authors | de Boissezon X, Démonet JF, Puel M, Marie N, Raboyeau G, Albucher JF, Chollet F, Cardebat D |
| Title | Subcortical aphasia: a longitudinal PET study |
| Reference | Stroke 2005; 36: 1467-1473 |
| PMID | 15933252 |
| DOI | 10.1161/01.str.0000169947.08972.4f |
| Language | French |
| Inclusion criteria | Subcortical stroke; no severe aphasia |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 52.4 ± 13 years, range 31-69 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 0) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
| Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | T1: 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's; T2: 4 recovered, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor; 1 transcortical sensory |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | 5 L non-thalamic subcortical, 2 L thalamic |
| 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: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; 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 (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT 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; minimal due to lesions being small and subcortical) |
| 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 | Yes |
| rest | None | 2 | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | Nouns in two runs, verbs in two runs, combined here because they were combined in analysis |
| 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? | 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 notes | — |
| Are the analyses clearly described? | No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below) |
| First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Time post onset |
| 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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | No significant correlation between time post onset and accuracy |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 50 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital |
| Findings notes | More activity with longer time post onset; based on coordinates in Table 3a |
| First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Word generation accuracy T1 |
| 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 | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 50 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L precuneus ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ R insula ↑ R posterior STG |
| Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 3b |
| 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 | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Description of masking unclear, but seems to be inclusively masked with T1, which seems inappropriate |
| Findings | ↑ L insula ↑ L posterior STG ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R cerebellum |
| Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 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 | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 20 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R cerebellum |
| Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 3c |
| Excluded analyses | — |
