| Literature DB >> 27176918 |
Rajani Sebastian1, Charltien Long1, Jeremy J Purcell1,2, Andreia V Faria3, Martin Lindquist4, Samson Jarso1, David Race1, Cameron Davis1, Joseph Posner1, Amy Wright1, Argye E Hillis1,5,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The neural mechanisms that support aphasia recovery are not yet fully understood. Our goal was to evaluate longitudinal changes in naming recovery in participants with posterior cerebral artery (PCA) stroke using a case-by-case analysis.Entities:
Keywords: PCA stroke; aphasia; fMRI; longitudinal recovery; naming network
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27176918 PMCID: PMC5003759 DOI: 10.3233/RNN-150621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci ISSN: 0922-6028 Impact factor: 2.406
Demographic information
| Participant | Age/Gender | Education | Site of Lesion |
| P1 | 54/F | 14 years | Left occipital, fusiform, lingual gyrus, and splenium |
| P2 | 46/M | 12 years | Left thalamus |
| P3 | 54/M | 12 years | Left thalamus |
| P4 | 60/M | 14 years | Left thalamus |
| Normal control | 59/F | 14 years | – |
Fig.1DWI scans at the acute time point for P1with a lesion in the left occipital, fusiform, lingual gyrus, and splenium; P2, P3, and P4 with lesions in the left thalamus.
Results of language tests
| Patient ID | Time point | BNT | HANA | PPT | BDAE Comprehension | BDAE Repetition | |||
| Words | Commands | Complex | Words | Sentences | |||||
| P1 | Acute | 10 | 60 | 62.5 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| 3W | 47 | 71 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| 6M | 100 | 94 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| P2 | Acute | 83.3 | 71.4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 4W | 86.6 | 82.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| 6M | 80 | 77.14 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| P3 | Acute | 37 | 88 | 66 | 83 | 80 | 100 | ||
| 3W | 57 | 57 | 100 | 93.7 | 100 | 83 | 100 | 100 | |
| 7M | 63 | 43 | 93 | 93.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| P4 | Acute | 100 | 88.6 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 83.3 | 100 | 100 |
| 4W | 96.6 | 94.2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| 6M | 93.3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Control | 0W | 97 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 4W | 100 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| 5M | 100 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
BNT: Boston Naming Test, HANA: Hopkins Action Naming Assessment, PPT: Pyramids and Palm Trees, BDAE: Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination.
Fig.2FMRI data registered in MNI space shows areas of activation associated with correct picture naming (phonemic+word cued naming) compared to viewing scrambled pictures at 0W (acute time point), 3–5W (sub acute time point), and 5–7M (chronic time point) for the normal control and participants with aphasia. Z (Gaussianised T/F) statistic images were thresholded using clusters determined by Z > 3.0 and a (corrected) cluster significance threshold of P = 0.05. All images are shown in radiological convention (left in image is right in the brain).
Fig.3Mean percent BOLD signal change for participants with aphasia at 0W (acute time point), 3–5W (sub acute time point), and 5–7M (chronic time point). Regions include: inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), superior temporal gyrus (STG), middle temporal gyrus (MTG), inferior temporal gyrus (ITG), supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and angular gyrus (AG).
Coefficient of variation (CV) in the mean percent BOLD signal across language ROIs for each participant with aphasia. The CV reflects the variability in signal change across ROI for each individual
| CV0-L | CV0-R | CV3-L | CV3-R | CV20-L | CV20-R | Improved in naming | Naming Test Score* 0W | Naming Test Score 3W | Naming Test Score 6M | |
| P1 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 0.39 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 1 | 10 | 47 | 100 |
| P2 | 0.42 | 0.82 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.77 | 0.34 | 0 | 83 | 86 | 80 |
| P3 | 1 | 0.72 | 0.38 | 3.5 | 0.7 | –3.1 | 0 | 47 | 57 | 63 |
| P4 | 0.57 | 0.93 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0.26 | 1 | 89 | 94 | 100 |
*Test score indicate performance on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) for P1, P2, P3 and Hopkins Action Naming Assessment (HANA)for P4.
Fig.4Fisher-transformed correlation matrix for the resting state data for P1 (who showed the most improvement) at each time point. Difference map shows the difference in correlation between the 5–7 month scan and the 0 week scan for the resting state data. Correlations were assessed across 12 ROIs in the language network corresponding to the left and right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), superior temporal gyrus (STG), middle temporal gyrus (MTG), inferior temporal gyrus (ITG), supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and angular gyrus (AG).
Fig.5Fisher-transformed correlation matrix for the resting state data for P3 (who showed persistent moderate naming deficit) at each time point. Difference map shows the difference in correlation between the 5–7 month scan and the 0 week scan for the resting-state data. Correlations were assessed across 12 ROIs in the language network corresponding to the left and right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), superior temporal gyrus (STG), middle temporal gyrus (MTG), inferior temporal gyrus (ITG), supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and angular gyrus (AG).