↓ Skip to main content

Can tDCS enhance item-specific effects and generalization after linguistically motivated aphasia therapy for verbs?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can tDCS enhance item-specific effects and generalization after linguistically motivated aphasia therapy for verbs?
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vânia de Aguiar, Roelien Bastiaanse, Rita Capasso, Marialuisa Gandolfi, Nicola Smania, Giorgio Rossi, Gabriele Miceli

Abstract

Background: Aphasia therapy focusing on abstract properties of language promotes both item-specific effects and generalization to untreated materials. Neuromodulation with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to enhance item-specific improvement, but its potential to enhance generalization has not been systematically investigated. Here, we test the efficacy of ACTION (a linguistically motivated protocol) and tDCS in producing item-specific and generalized improvement in aphasia. Method: Nine individuals with post-stroke aphasia participated in this study. Participants were pre-tested with a diagnostic language battery and a cognitive screening. Experimental tasks were administered over multiple baselines. Production of infinitives, of finite verbs and of full sentences were assessed before and after each treatment phase. Nonword repetition was used as a control measure. Each subject was treated in two phases. Ten daily 1-h treatment sessions were provided per phase, in a double-blind, cross-over design. Linguistically-motivated language therapy focusing on verb inflection and sentence construction was provided in both phases. Each session began with 20 min of real or sham tDCS. Stimulation site was determined individually, based on MRI scans. Results: Group data showed improved production of treated and untreated verbs, attesting the efficacy of behavioral treatment, and its potential to yield generalization. Each individual showed significant item-specific improvement. Generalization occurred in the first phase of treatment for all subjects, and in the second phase for two subjects. Stimulation effects at the group level were significant for treated and untreated verbs altogether, but a ceiling effect for Sham cannot be excluded, as scores between real tDCS and Sham differed only before treatment. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate the efficacy of ACTION and suggest that tDCS may enhance both item-specific effects and generalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 18%
Neuroscience 17 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Linguistics 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 28 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,169,419
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,846
of 3,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,247
of 263,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#58
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.