BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional neuroimaging studies have demonstrated right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) activation in poststroke aphasia. It remains unclear whether this activation is essential for language performance. We tested this hypothesis in a positron emission tomography (PET) activation study during a semantic task with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on right-handed patients experiencing poststroke aphasia and examined whether rTMS stimulation over the right and left IFG would interfere with language performance. METHODS: Eleven patients with left-sided middle cerebral arterial infarction, 50 to 75 years of age, were tested with the Aachen Aphasia Test Battery and underwent (15)O-H2O PET activation during a semantic task within 2 weeks after stroke. PET activation images were coregistered to T1-weighted MRIs. Stimulation sites were determined on renderings of head and brain over the maximum activation within left and right IFG. rTMS was performed with 20% maximum output (2.1 T), 10-s train duration, at 4 Hz frequency. A positive rTMS effect was defined as an increased reaction time latency or error rate in the semantic task. RESULTS: PET activations of the IFG were observed on the left (3 patients) and bilaterally (8 patients). Right IFG stimulation was positive in 5 patients with right IFG activation, indicating essential language function. In a verbal fluency task, these patients had a lower performance than patients without right-sided TMS effect. CONCLUSIONS: In some poststroke aphasics, right IFG activation is essential for residual language function. However, its compensatory potential seems to be less effective than in patients who recover left IFG function. These results suggest a hierarchy in recovery from poststroke aphasia and a (limited) compensatory potential of the nondominant hemisphere.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional neuroimaging studies have demonstrated right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) activation in poststroke aphasia. It remains unclear whether this activation is essential for language performance. We tested this hypothesis in a positron emission tomography (PET) activation study during a semantic task with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on right-handed patients experiencing poststroke aphasia and examined whether rTMS stimulation over the right and left IFG would interfere with language performance. METHODS: Eleven patients with left-sided middle cerebral arterial infarction, 50 to 75 years of age, were tested with the Aachen Aphasia Test Battery and underwent (15)O-H2O PET activation during a semantic task within 2 weeks after stroke. PET activation images were coregistered to T1-weighted MRIs. Stimulation sites were determined on renderings of head and brain over the maximum activation within left and right IFG. rTMS was performed with 20% maximum output (2.1 T), 10-s train duration, at 4 Hz frequency. A positive rTMS effect was defined as an increased reaction time latency or error rate in the semantic task. RESULTS: PET activations of the IFG were observed on the left (3 patients) and bilaterally (8 patients). Right IFG stimulation was positive in 5 patients with right IFG activation, indicating essential language function. In a verbal fluency task, these patients had a lower performance than patients without right-sided TMS effect. CONCLUSIONS: In some poststroke aphasics, right IFG activation is essential for residual language function. However, its compensatory potential seems to be less effective than in patients who recover left IFG function. These results suggest a hierarchy in recovery from poststroke aphasia and a (limited) compensatory potential of the nondominant hemisphere.
Authors: Margaret A Naeser; Paula I Martin; Ethan Treglia; Michael Ho; Elina Kaplan; Shahid Bashir; Roy Hamilton; H Branch Coslett; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Shihui Xing; Elizabeth H Lacey; Laura M Skipper-Kallal; Xiong Jiang; Michelle L Harris-Love; Jinsheng Zeng; Peter E Turkeltaub Journal: Brain Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: J P Szaflarski; J B Allendorfer; A W Byars; J Vannest; A Dietz; K A Hernando; S K Holland Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.406