| Literature DB >> 34862359 |
Jane B Allendorfer1, Rodolphe Nenert1, Jennifer Vannest2, Jerzy P Szaflarski1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is an ongoing need for facilitating language recovery in chronic post-stroke aphasia. The primary aim of this study (NCT01512264) was to examine if noninvasive intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) applied to the injured left-hemispheric cortex promotes language improvements and fMRI changes in post-stroke aphasia. MATERIAL AND METHODS Participants were randomized to 3 weeks of sham (Tx0) or 1-3 weeks of iTBS (Tx123). We assessed participants who completed the first 2 functional MRI (fMRI) sessions (T1, T2) where they performed 2 overt language fMRI tasks, and examined longitudinal response after 3 months (T3). Language performance and fMRI activation changes, and relationships between these changes were assessed. RESULTS From T1 to T2, both groups showed improvements on the Boston Naming Test (BNT). From T1 to T3, Tx123 improved on the Aphasia Quotient, post-scan word recognition on the verbal paired associates task (VPAT), and perceived communicative ability. Each group exhibited significant activation changes between T1 and T2 for both tasks. Only the Tx123 group exhibited fMRI activation changes between T2 to T3 on the verb-generation task and between T1 and T3 on VPAT. Delayed aphasia symptom improvement for Tx123 was associated with increased left ventral visual stream activation from T1 to T3 (rho=0.74, P=0.0058), and with decreased bilateral supplementary motor area activation related to VPAT encoding from T2 to T3 (rho=-0.80, P=0.0016). CONCLUSIONS Observed iTBS-induced language improvements and associations between delayed fMRI changes and aphasia improvements support the therapeutic and neurorehabilitative potential of iTBS in post-stroke aphasia recovery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34862359 PMCID: PMC8653428 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.934818
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Baseline data of stroke participants who completed the overt fMRI language tasks for the first 2 time points and were included in the analyses (N=24). Based on the randomization procedure, the subjects received variable number of sham and active iTBS treatment (Tx) weeks.
| Participant | TT | Handedness | Sex | Age at scan | YSS | fMRI sessions | iTBS Tx weeks | Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PART002 | 33 | Right | M | 64.6 | 14 | 3 | 0 | Tx0 |
| PART012 | 21 | Right | F | 23.8 | 2.3 | 2 | 0 | Tx0 |
| PART019 | 34 | Right | F | 43.6 | 2.2 | 3 | 0 | Tx0 |
| PART023 | 9 | Right | M | 54.6 | 3.7 | 3 | 0 | Tx0 |
| PART024 | 41 | Left | M | 44.1 | 3.3 | 3 | 0 | Tx0 |
| PART036 | 32 | Right | M | 63 | 2.2 | 3 | 0 | Tx0 |
| PART001 | 28 | Right | F | 79 | 3.4 | 3 | 1 | Tx123 |
| PART010 | 34 | Right | M | 43.1 | 1.3 | 3 | 1 | Tx123 |
| PART013 | 10 | Right | F | 66.6 | 2.2 | 3 | 1 | Tx123 |
| PART021 | 9 | Right | M | 46.4 | 1.7 | 2 | 1 | Tx123 |
| PART030 | 31 | Right | M | 84.7 | 1.3 | 2 | 1 | Tx123 |
| PART034 | 12 | Right | M | 47.3 | 0.9 | 3 | 1 | Tx123 |
| PART003 | 12 | Right | F | 57.8 | 13 | 3 | 2 | Tx123 |
| PART008 | 9 | Right | M | 57 | 2.1 | 3 | 2 | Tx123 |
| PART022 | 23 | Right | M | 53.3 | 1.2 | 3 | 2 | Tx123 |
| PART027 | 24 | Right | M | 67.4 | 12.7 | 2 | 2 | Tx123 |
| PART033 | 27 | Right | M | 54 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Tx123 |
| PART035 | 4 | Right | M | 46.2 | 1.2 | 3 | 2 | Tx123 |
| PART006 | 6 | Right | M | 49.6 | 2.9 | 3 | 3 | Tx123 |
| PART009 | 21 | Right | M | 50.7 | 1.1 | 3 | 3 | Tx123 |
| PART011 | 6 | Right | F | 74 | 1.65 | 2 | 3 | Tx123 |
| PART014 | 39 | Left | F | 61.8 | 4.4 | 3 | 3 | Tx123 |
| PART020 | 33 | Right | M | 62.1 | 2.7 | 3 | 3 | Tx123 |
| PART032 | 39 | Right | F | 57.2 | 1.1 | 3 | 3 | Tx123 |
TT – Token Test score; YSS – years since left hemisphere ischemic stroke.
Figure 1Overview of CONSORT flow diagram (A) and composite lesion maps for the iTBS treatment groups (B). (A) The diagram outlines recruitment of subjects who suffered a left middle cerebral artery (LMCA) stroke and how many participants did and did not complete both fMRI visits at baseline within 1 week of iTBS treatment initiation (T1), within one week of treatment completion (T2), and again after 12 weeks following treatment completion (T3). (B) The composite lesion map color scale for the sham iTBS group (top; n=6) ranges from the minimum (n=1 in light blue) to the maximum (n=6 in yellow) number of participants that show overlap of lesions in 2 locations indicated by the crosshairs in the sagittal and axial slices. The composite lesion map color scale for the active iTBS group (bottom; n=18) ranges from the minimum (n=1 in dark orange) to the maximum (n=14 in maroon) number of participants that show overlap of lesions in 2 locations indicated by the crosshairs in the sagittal and axial slices. Left in the image is left in the brain. The inferior to superior horizontal lines on the coronal images indicates each axial slice from left to right.
Variables for the study participants who completed at least the first 2 fMRI visits (T1, T2), and those who returned for a follow-up visit 3 months post-treatment (T3). Participants are grouped according to receiving sham (Tx0) and active iTBS (Tx123) treatment.
| Variable | T1: Tx0 (n=6) | T1: Tx123 (n=18) | T2: Tx0 (n=6) | T2: Tx123 (n=18) | T3: Tx0 (n=5) | T3: Tx123 (n=13) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNT | 41 (13.6) | 29.7 (20.1) | 48.8 (10.3) | 35.6 (21.0) | 47.6 (9.6) | 28.1 (23.5) |
| SFT | 25.5 (8.9) | 12.8 (10.3) | 29.2 (9.6) | 14.6 (11.2) | 30.4 (5.3) | 13.6 (11.8) |
| COWAT | 9.3 (5.7) | 7.2 (6.4) | 10.2 (5.6) | 8.7 (7.9) | 12.6 (5.5) | 7 (7.1) |
| Complex ideation | 8.5 (4.4) | 6.7 (2.8) | 9.2 (3.8) | 6.5 (3.5) | 9.8 (3.8) | 6.8 (3.3) |
| PPVT | 188 (24.2) | 184 (25.6)a | 184.2 (15.6) | 185.8 (29.6) | 199 (9.5) | 175.6 (35.0) |
| WAB-R Aphasia Quotient | 83.1 (12.6) | 58.4 (29.7) | 80.1 (12.4) | 57.9 (30.8) | 84.4 (11.1) | 61.5 (33.1) |
| WAB-R Apraxia Total | 57 (2.8) | 50.9 (11.7) | 57.2 (3.3) | 50.3 (11.6) | 59.2 (0.8) | 52.7 (9.2) |
| Mini-CAL | 55.3 (17.0) | 42.5 (10.8) | 50 (7.0) | 47.8 (16.4) | 49.7 (14.0) | 53.2 (12.9) |
| fMRI Verb Generation Task | ||||||
| Correct trials for “say verbs” | 2.4 (2.1) | 0.4 (1.1) | 3.4 (4.5) | 0.6 (1.4) | 4 (4.2) | 2.1 (3.5) |
| Non-verb words for “say verbs” | 18 (12.9) | 8.7 (7.1) | 14.4 (15.5) | 12.1 (9.2) | 15 (16.1) | 13.5 (11.6) |
| Correct trials for “repeat nouns” | 12.8 (1.6) | 5.2 (5.2) | 13 (2.1) | 7 (5.6) | 14 (1.4) | 7.9 (4.7) |
| fMRI Verbal Paired Associates Task | ||||||
| Correct trials for “read” | 26.5 (4.7) | 12.8 (11.3) | 27.6 (3.8) | 19 (11.3) | 27.2 (4.7) | 12.4 (12.9) |
| Correct trials for “generate” | 11.3 (4.4) | 5.4 (6.7) | 14.2 (5.0) | 9.3 (8.5) | 15.4 (8.1) | 7.2 (8.9) |
| Post-scan Recognition Memory | ||||||
| Correct memory for “read” | 20.8 (4.5) | 14.1(6.5) | 22.3 (5.2) | 15.4 (7.1) | 17.4 (12.3) | 18.7 (7.9) |
| Correct memory for “generate” | 20.8 (5.2) | 12.4 (7.0) | 20 (5.3) | 13.6 (6.8) | 17.4 (12.3) | 15.6 (6.8) |
Scores reported as mean (SD) for each variable. Tx0 and Tx123 groups compared at baseline using 2-sample t-tests.
P<0.05;
P<0.005;
P<0.001;
0.05≤ P<0.10.
Missing data for 1 subject;
missing data for 2 subject;
missing data for 3 subjects;
missing data for 4 subjects;
missing data for 5 subjects;
missing data for 6 subjects;
missing data for 7 subjects.
Figure 2Assessments showing significant changes over time for the treatment groups between the 3 fMRI visits: (A) between baseline (T1) and immediately after treatment (T2); (B) between T2 and at 3-month follow-up (T3); (C) between T1 and T3. Mean ±SEM are indicated on the graphs, with the line at top part of graph indicates a significant difference between time points for Tx0, while the line at bottom part of graph indicates a significant difference between time points for Tx123. * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001. Tx0 – 3 weeks sham; Tx123 – at least 1 week of iTBS; BNT – Boston Naming Test; COWAT – Controlled Oral Word Association Test; AQ – Aphasia Quotient score on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised; Mini-CAL – mini-Communicative Activity Log; Recognition – read – number of correctly remembered words from the “read” condition of the verbal paired associates task.
Figure 3Statistical maps illustrating fMRI activation changes during the verb-generation task (VGT; A–D) and verbal paired associates task (VPAT; E–F) and scatterplots showing Spearman correlations between changes in VPAT verbal encoding activation and change in aphasia quotient (AQ; H–I). Activation clusters are significant at corrected P<0.05. In the coronal (left image) and axial (middle image) slices, left in the image is left in the brain. Left in the sagittal slice (right image) is the anterior part of the brain. (A) At T1 compared to T2, Tx0 exhibited greater activation for speech production/auditory processing in the right and extending to the left visual cortex, and (B) for noun-verb semantic associations in the right and left visual cortex, right putamen and anterior insula, and bilateral cerebellum. (C) Tx123 exhibited greater activation for speech production/auditory processing in the right putamen, insula, superior medial gyrus and anterior cingulate cortex at T1 compared to T2, and (D) in the right inferior temporal gyrus at T3 compared to T2. (E) Activation for verbal encoding for Tx0 was greater at T2 relative to T1 in the right precuneus, middle cingulate cortex, paracentral lobule and postcentral gyrus. (F) Activation for verbal encoding for Tx123 was greater at T1 relative to T2 in the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, and (G) greater at T3 relative to T1 in left visual regions (ie, fusiform gyrus extending to inferior/middle occipital gyrus). (H) There was a positive association between change from T1 to T3 in VPAT verbal encoding activation in left visual regions shown in G and corresponding change in AQ. (I) There was a negative association between change from T2 to T3 in verbal encoding activation in the a priori region of interest in the bilateral supplementary motor area (SMA) and change in AQ from T1 to T3.
Location and cluster extent of brain regions showing significant differences in fMRI activation patterns between time points (T1, T2, T3) for the verb-generation task (VGT) and verbal paired associates task (VPAT). Peak Montreal Neurologic Institute (MNI) coordinates (x, y, z) and t-value for each brain region are also provided.
| Contrast | Group | Brain regions | Peak MNI coordinates | Peak t-value | Cluster size (mm3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGT: Speech Production/Auditory Processing (“Say Verbs” vs “Think Verbs”) | |||||
| T1 >T2 | Tx0 | R. Middle Occipital Gyrus extending to R. Fusiform Gyrus, and to L. Calcarine Gyrus and Lingual Gyrus | +28, −95, +16 | −9.63 | 4779 |
| Tx123 | R. Putamen extending to R. Insula, Superior Medial Gyrus, and Anterior Cingulate Cortex | +31, +4, +7 | −4.31 | 6102 | |
| T2 <T3 | Tx123 | R. Inferior Temporal Gyrus | +55, +4, −38 | 4.44 | 4050 |
| VGT: Processing Noun-Verb Semantic Associations (“Say Verbs” vs “Repeat Nouns”) | |||||
| T1 >T2 | Tx0 | R. Calcarine Gyrus extending to L. Cuneus and Middle Occipital Gyrus, and to L. Lingual Gyrus and Superior Occipital Gyrus | +16, −74, +4 | −7.88 | 10,881 |
| R. Putamen extending to R. Anterior Insula | +31, +13, +1 | −9.30 | 5373 | ||
| R. Cerebellum extending to L. Cerebellum | +19, −56, −23 | −7.84 | 3915 | ||
| VPAT: Verbal Encoding (“Generate” vs “Read”) | |||||
| T1 <T2 | Tx0 | R. Precuneus extending to Middle Cingulate Cortex, Paracentral Lobule, and Postcentral Gyrus | +4, −44, +46 | 7.62 | 4239 |
| T1 >T2 | Tx123 | R./L. Anterior Cingulate Cortex | +4, +34, +16 | −4.09 | 3807 |
| T1 <T3 | Tx123 | L. Fusiform Gyrus extending to Inferior/Middle Occipital Gyrus | −41, −80, −14 | 6.31 | 3807 |
L – left; R – right.
For the VGT contrast of “say verbs” vs “think verbs” in Tx0, simulations yielded cluster thresholds of 3699 mm3 for both T1 vs T2 and T1 vs T3, and 3915 mm3 for T2 vs T3. For the VGT contrast in Tx123, simulations yielded cluster thresholds of 3375 mm3 for T1 vs T2, 3618 mm3 for T2 vs T3, and 3564 mm3 for T1 vs T3.
For the VGT contrast of “say verbs” vs “repeat nouns” in the Tx0, simulations yielded cluster thresholds of 3213 mm3 for both T1 vs T2 and T1 vs T3, and 3078 mm3 for T2 vs T3. For the VGT in the Tx123 group, simulations yielded cluster extent volume thresholds of 3213 mm3 for T1 vs T2, 3348 mm3 for T2 vs T3, and 3294 mm3 for T1 vs T3.
For the VPAT contrast of “generate” vs “read” in the Tx0 group, simulations yielded a critical cluster extent volume thresholds of 3564 mm3 for T1 vs T2, 4374 mm3 for T2 vs T3, and 4698 mm3 for T1 vs T3. For the VPAT contrast in the Tx123 group, simulations yielded cluster thresholds of 3024 mm3 for T1 vs T2, and 3402 mm3 for both T2 vs T3 and T1 vs T3.