BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationships between clinical tests, the processes they measure, and the brain networks underlying them, is critical in order for clinicians to move beyond aphasia syndrome classification toward specification of individual language process impairments. OBJECTIVE: To understand the cognitive, language, and neuroanatomical factors underlying scores of commonly used aphasia tests. METHODS: Twenty-five behavioral tests were administered to a group of 38 chronic left hemisphere stroke survivors and a high-resolution magnetic resonance image was obtained. Test scores were entered into a principal components analysis to extract the latent variables (factors) measured by the tests. Multivariate lesion-symptom mapping was used to localize lesions associated with the factor scores. RESULTS: The principal components analysis yielded 4 dissociable factors, which we labeled Word Finding/Fluency, Comprehension, Phonology/Working Memory Capacity, and Executive Function. While many tests loaded onto the factors in predictable ways, some relied heavily on factors not commonly associated with the tests. Lesion symptom mapping demonstrated discrete brain structures associated with each factor, including frontal, temporal, and parietal areas extending beyond the classical language network. Specific functions mapped onto brain anatomy largely in correspondence with modern neural models of language processing. CONCLUSIONS: An extensive clinical aphasia assessment identifies 4 independent language functions, relying on discrete parts of the left middle cerebral artery territory. A better understanding of the processes underlying cognitive tests and the link between lesion and behavior may lead to improved aphasia diagnosis, and may yield treatments better targeted to an individual's specific pattern of deficits and preserved abilities.
BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationships between clinical tests, the processes they measure, and the brain networks underlying them, is critical in order for clinicians to move beyond aphasia syndrome classification toward specification of individual language process impairments. OBJECTIVE: To understand the cognitive, language, and neuroanatomical factors underlying scores of commonly used aphasia tests. METHODS: Twenty-five behavioral tests were administered to a group of 38 chronic left hemisphere stroke survivors and a high-resolution magnetic resonance image was obtained. Test scores were entered into a principal components analysis to extract the latent variables (factors) measured by the tests. Multivariate lesion-symptom mapping was used to localize lesions associated with the factor scores. RESULTS: The principal components analysis yielded 4 dissociable factors, which we labeled Word Finding/Fluency, Comprehension, Phonology/Working Memory Capacity, and Executive Function. While many tests loaded onto the factors in predictable ways, some relied heavily on factors not commonly associated with the tests. Lesion symptom mapping demonstrated discrete brain structures associated with each factor, including frontal, temporal, and parietal areas extending beyond the classical language network. Specific functions mapped onto brain anatomy largely in correspondence with modern neural models of language processing. CONCLUSIONS: An extensive clinical aphasia assessment identifies 4 independent language functions, relying on discrete parts of the left middle cerebral artery territory. A better understanding of the processes underlying cognitive tests and the link between lesion and behavior may lead to improved aphasia diagnosis, and may yield treatments better targeted to an individual's specific pattern of deficits and preserved abilities.
Authors: Elizabeth Bates; Stephen M Wilson; Ayse Pinar Saygin; Frederic Dick; Martin I Sereno; Robert T Knight; Nina F Dronkers Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Mariacristina Musso; Andrea Moro; Volkmar Glauche; Michel Rijntjes; Jürgen Reichenbach; Christian Büchel; Cornelius Weiller Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Daniel Wiesen; Christoph Sperber; Grigori Yourganov; Christopher Rorden; Hans-Otto Karnath Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Maryam Ghaleh; Elizabeth H Lacey; Mackenzie E Fama; Zainab Anbari; Andrew T DeMarco; Peter E Turkeltaub Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Daniel Mirman; Amanda E Kraft; Denise Y Harvey; Adelyn R Brecher; Myrna F Schwartz Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: J Vivian Dickens; Mackenzie E Fama; Andrew T DeMarco; Elizabeth H Lacey; Rhonda B Friedman; Peter E Turkeltaub Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Lei Zhao; J Matthijs Biesbroek; Lin Shi; Wenyan Liu; Hugo J Kuijf; Winnie Wc Chu; Jill M Abrigo; Ryan Kl Lee; Thomas Wh Leung; Alexander Yl Lau; Geert J Biessels; Vincent Mok; Adrian Wong Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Shihui Xing; Ayan Mandal; Elizabeth H Lacey; Laura M Skipper-Kallal; Jinsheng Zeng; Peter E Turkeltaub Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 3.919