| Authors | Harvey DY, Podell J, Turkeltaub PE, Faseyitan O, Coslett HB, Hamilton RH |
| Title | Functional reorganization of right prefrontal cortex underlies sustained naming improvements in chronic aphasia via repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation |
| Reference | Cogn Behav Neurol 2017; 30: 133-144 |
| PMID | 29256908 |
| DOI | 10.1097/wnn.0000000000000141 |
| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Mild-moderate non-fluent aphasia; relatively intact comprehension; able to produce meaningful words and phrases |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
| 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 (range 47-75 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 6-102 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | BDAE, BNT |
| Aphasia severity | Mild-moderate |
| Aphasia type | All non-fluent |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Range 36.6-252.1 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| 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, 2 months after treatment; T3: 6 months after treatment (the 2-month time point was not included in analysis because there was no significant behavioral effect at that time) |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Inhibitory rTMS to R IFG, 10 days |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 200 |
| 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 | Word (overt) | 20 | Yes | Yes |
| viewing patterns | None | 20 | N/A | N/A |
| Conditions notes | Assume all individuals could do based on inclusion criterion and BNT scores |
| Are the contrasts clearly described? | Yes |
| Language condition | Picture naming |
| Control condition | Viewing patterns |
| 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? | Yes |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing patterns |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T3 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on pp. 138-9 |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R IFG pars triangularis ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R occipital ↓ R hippocampus/MTL |
| Findings notes | Based on Figure 5 and Table 4 |
| Excluded analyses | — |
