Adam Gerstenecker1,2,3, Ronald M Lazar1,3. 1. a Department of Neurology , University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , AL, USA. 2. b Alzheimer's Disease Center , University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , AL, USA. 3. c Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute , University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , AL, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To review the research literature pertaining to post-stroke language recovery, and to discuss neurocognitive assessment in patients in the context of aphasia, time course of language recovery, factors associated with language recovery, and therapeutic techniques designed to facilitate language recovery. Method: Articles were identified through PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar searches. Examples of utilized keywords include "post-stroke aphasia," "post-stroke language recovery," "post-stroke neurocognitive assessment," and "neuropsychology and aphasia." Results: Most language recovery occurs in the first few weeks following stroke, but residual recovery may occur for many years. Although initial aphasia severity is the single largest determinant of post-stroke language recovery, a number of other variables also contribute. Several techniques have been developed to aid in the recovery process including speech-language therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation, although the effectiveness of acute and subacute treatment remains unclear. Some degree of valid neurocognitive assessment is possible in patients with aphasia, and the information gained from such an evaluation can aid the rehabilitative process Conclusions: Significant recovery of language function is possible following a stroke, but prediction of level of recovery in an individual patient is difficult. Information about initial aphasia severity and the integrity of cognitive domains other than language can help guide the rehabilitation team, as well as manage expectations for recovery.
Objective: To review the research literature pertaining to post-stroke language recovery, and to discuss neurocognitive assessment in patients in the context of aphasia, time course of language recovery, factors associated with language recovery, and therapeutic techniques designed to facilitate language recovery. Method: Articles were identified through PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar searches. Examples of utilized keywords include "post-stroke aphasia," "post-stroke language recovery," "post-stroke neurocognitive assessment," and "neuropsychology and aphasia." Results: Most language recovery occurs in the first few weeks following stroke, but residual recovery may occur for many years. Although initial aphasia severity is the single largest determinant of post-stroke language recovery, a number of other variables also contribute. Several techniques have been developed to aid in the recovery process including speech-language therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation, although the effectiveness of acute and subacute treatment remains unclear. Some degree of valid neurocognitive assessment is possible in patients with aphasia, and the information gained from such an evaluation can aid the rehabilitative process Conclusions: Significant recovery of language function is possible following a stroke, but prediction of level of recovery in an individual patient is difficult. Information about initial aphasia severity and the integrity of cognitive domains other than language can help guide the rehabilitation team, as well as manage expectations for recovery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Stroke; aphasia; language recovery; post-stroke neurocognitive assessment
Authors: S M Greenberg; M E Briggs; B T Hyman; G J Kokoris; C Takis; D S Kanter; C S Kase; M S Pessin Journal: Stroke Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Hanane El Hachioui; Hester F Lingsma; Mieke E van de Sandt-Koenderman; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Koudstaal; Evy G Visch-Brink Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-07-22 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: T Pohjasvaara; M Leskelä; R Vataja; H Kalska; R Ylikoski; M Hietanen; A Leppävuori; M Kaste; T Erkinjuntti Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Jerzy P Szaflarski; Akila Rajagopal; Mekibib Altaye; Anna W Byars; Lisa Jacola; Vincent J Schmithorst; Mark B Schapiro; Elena Plante; Scott K Holland Journal: Brain Res Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Gert Kwakkel; Caroline Winters; Erwin E H van Wegen; Rinske H M Nijland; Annette A A van Kuijk; Anne Visser-Meily; Jurriaan de Groot; Erwin de Vlugt; J Hans Arendzen; Alexander C H Geurts; Carel G M Meskers Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Femke Nouwens; Lonneke Ml de Lau; Evy G Visch-Brink; Wme Mieke van de Sandt-Koenderman; Hester F Lingsma; Sylvia Goosen; Dineke Mj Blom; Peter J Koudstaal; Diederik Wj Dippel Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2017-03-10
Authors: Helena Hybbinette; Ellika Schalling; Jeanette Plantin; Catharina Nygren-Deboussard; Marika Schütz; Per Östberg; Påvel G Lindberg Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Alberto Osa García; Simona Maria Brambati; Amélie Brisebois; Marianne Désilets-Barnabé; Bérengère Houzé; Christophe Bedetti; Elizabeth Rochon; Carol Leonard; Alex Desautels; Karine Marcotte Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.003