Peter E Turkeltaub1, Samuel Messing, Catherine Norise, Roy H Hamilton. 1. Laboratory for Cognition and Neural Stimulation, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 3400 Spruce Street, 3W Gates Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. peter.turkeltaub@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: If neuroplastic changes in aphasia are consistent across studies, this would imply relatively stereotyped mechanisms of recovery which could guide the design of more efficient noninvasive brain stimulation treatments. To address this question, we performed a meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of chronic aphasia after stroke. METHODS: Functional neuroimaging articles using language tasks in patients with chronic aphasia after stroke (n = 105) and control subjects (n = 129) were collected. Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis determined areas of consistent activity in each group. Functional homology between areas recruited by aphasic patients and controls was assessed by determining whether they activated under the same experimental conditions. RESULTS: Controls consistently activated a network of left hemisphere language areas. Aphasic patients consistently activated some spared left hemisphere language nodes, new left hemisphere areas, and right hemisphere areas homotopic to the control subjects' language network. Patients with left inferior frontal lesions recruited right inferior frontal gyrus more reliably than those without. Some areas, including right dorsal pars opercularis, were functionally homologous with corresponding control areas, while others, including right pars triangularis, were not. CONCLUSIONS: The network of brain areas aphasic patients recruit for language functions is largely consistent across studies. Several recruitment mechanisms occur, including persistent function in spared nodes, compensatory recruitment of alternate nodes, and recruitment of areas that may hinder recovery. These findings may guide development of brain stimulation protocols that can be applied across populations of aphasic patients who share common attributes.
OBJECTIVES: If neuroplastic changes in aphasia are consistent across studies, this would imply relatively stereotyped mechanisms of recovery which could guide the design of more efficient noninvasive brain stimulation treatments. To address this question, we performed a meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of chronic aphasia after stroke. METHODS: Functional neuroimaging articles using language tasks in patients with chronic aphasia after stroke (n = 105) and control subjects (n = 129) were collected. Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis determined areas of consistent activity in each group. Functional homology between areas recruited by aphasic patients and controls was assessed by determining whether they activated under the same experimental conditions. RESULTS: Controls consistently activated a network of left hemisphere language areas. Aphasic patients consistently activated some spared left hemisphere language nodes, new left hemisphere areas, and right hemisphere areas homotopic to the control subjects' language network. Patients with left inferior frontal lesions recruited right inferior frontal gyrus more reliably than those without. Some areas, including right dorsal pars opercularis, were functionally homologous with corresponding control areas, while others, including right pars triangularis, were not. CONCLUSIONS: The network of brain areas aphasic patients recruit for language functions is largely consistent across studies. Several recruitment mechanisms occur, including persistent function in spared nodes, compensatory recruitment of alternate nodes, and recruitment of areas that may hinder recovery. These findings may guide development of brain stimulation protocols that can be applied across populations of aphasic patients who share common attributes.
Authors: Thomas J Grabowski; Hanna Damasio; Daniel Tranel; Gregory E Cooper; Laura L Boles Ponto; G Leonard Watkins; Richard D Hichwa Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Margaret A Naeser; Paula I Martin; Marjorie Nicholas; Errol H Baker; Heidi Seekins; Masahito Kobayashi; Hugo Theoret; Felipe Fregni; Jose Maria-Tormos; Jacquie Kurland; Karl W Doron; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Brain Lang Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Roy H Hamilton; Linda Sanders; Jennifer Benson; Olufunsho Faseyitan; Catherine Norise; Margaret Naeser; Paula Martin; H Branch Coslett Journal: Brain Lang Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Peter E Turkeltaub; Simon B Eickhoff; Angela R Laird; Mick Fox; Martin Wiener; Peter Fox Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-02-08 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Simon B Eickhoff; Angela R Laird; Christian Grefkes; Ling E Wang; Karl Zilles; Peter T Fox Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: G Raboyeau; X De Boissezon; N Marie; S Balduyck; M Puel; C Bézy; J F Démonet; D Cardebat Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Paula I Martin; Margaret A Naeser; Michael Ho; Ethan Treglia; Elina Kaplan; Errol H Baker; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.081
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: Veronika I Müller; Edna C Cieslik; Angela R Laird; Peter T Fox; Joaquim Radua; David Mataix-Cols; Christopher R Tench; Tal Yarkoni; Thomas E Nichols; Peter E Turkeltaub; Tor D Wager; Simon B Eickhoff Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Sophia van Hees; Katie McMahon; Anthony Angwin; Greig de Zubicaray; Stephen Read; David A Copland Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Julius Fridriksson; H Isabel Hubbard; Sarah Grace Hudspeth; Audrey L Holland; Leonardo Bonilha; Davida Fromm; Chris Rorden Journal: Brain Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 13.501