| Authors | Abel S, Weiller C, Huber W, Willmes K |
| Title | Neural underpinnings for model-oriented therapy of aphasic word production |
| Reference | Neuropsychologia 2014; 57: 154-165 |
| PMID | 24686092 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.010 |
| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | Anomia; no severe AoS or dysarthria |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 (plus 9 excluded: 4 for ceiling performance; 5 for technical problems) |
| 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 (median 48 years, range 35-74 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 10; females: 4) |
| 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 (median 41 months, range 11-72 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | 8 Broca's, 3 Wernicke's, 1 fluent non-classifiable, 1 global, 1 transcortical sensory |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA; 2 also had ACA |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~6 weeks later (labeled T2 and T3 in paper) |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Lexical therapy, alternating between weeks with phonological and semantic treatment, 4 weeks; 60 out of the 132 items were trained |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (trials too close together (~8 s) and insufficient jitter (1-3 s) for event-related design) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 560 |
| 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? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| picture naming (semantic trained items) | Word (overt) | 30 | Yes | Unknown |
| picture naming (phonological trained items) | Word (overt) | 30 | Yes | Unknown |
| picture naming (untrained items) | Word (overt) | 30 | Yes | Unknown |
| picture naming (already known items) | Word (overt) | 42 | Yes | Unknown |
| rest | None | implicit baseline | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | — |
| Are the contrasts clearly described? | Yes |
| Language condition | Picture naming (all conditions) |
| 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? | 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 | But see control data reported in a subsequent paper (Abel et al., 2015) |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (trained items) |
| Control condition | Picture naming (untrained items) |
| 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Trained items improved more than untrained items |
| 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 | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (semantic trained items) |
| Control condition | Picture naming (phonological trained items) |
| 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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| 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? | Yes |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
| 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 cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ R basal ganglia |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ picture naming 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 cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L posterior STS ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ L occipital |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items) |
| 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 | Trained items improved more than untrained items |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L precuneus ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L mid temporal ↑ L posterior cingulate ↑ L thalamus ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↑ R posterior cingulate ↑ R thalamus ↑ R basal ganglia |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items) |
| 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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | No differential effects for semantic vs phonological trained items |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R superior parietal ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L somato-motor ↓ L occipital ↓ L anterior cingulate ↓ L posterior cingulate ↓ R precuneus ↓ R occipital ↓ R anterior cingulate ↓ R posterior cingulate ↓ R hippocampus/MTL |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with semantic impairment T1 (n = 8) vs with phonological impairment T1 (n = 6) |
| 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 cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | (Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) 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 | Phonological patients showed more improvement on trained items |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ L thalamus ↑ L basal ganglia ↑ R somato-motor ↓ L IFG pars opercularis |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) 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 cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L basal ganglia |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) 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 cluster_threshold_beta |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| Excluded analyses | — |
