↓ Skip to main content

Therapy-Induced Neuroplasticity in Chronic Aphasia After Phonological Component Analysis: A Matter of Intensity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Therapy-Induced Neuroplasticity in Chronic Aphasia After Phonological Component Analysis: A Matter of Intensity
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00225
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karine Marcotte, Laura Laird, Tali Bitan, Jed A. Meltzer, Simon J. Graham, Carol Leonard, Elizabeth Rochon

Abstract

Despite the growing evidence regarding the importance of intensity and dose in aphasia therapy, few well-controlled studies contrasting the effects of intensive and non-intensive treatment have been conducted to date. Phonological components analysis (PCA) treatment for anomia has been associated with improvements in some patients with chronic aphasia; however, the effect of treatment intensity has not yet been studied with PCA. Thus, the aim of the present study was to identify the effect of intensity on neural processing associated with word retrieval abilities after PCA treatment. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine therapy-induced changes in activation during an overt naming task in two patients who suffered from a stroke in the left middle cerebral artery territory. P1 received intensive PCA treatment whereas P2 received the standard, non-intensive, PCA treatment. Behavioral results indicate that both standard and intensive conditions yielded improved naming performance with treated nouns, but the changes were only significant for the patient who received the intensive treatment. The improvements were found to be long lasting as both patients maintained improved naming at 2-months follow-ups. The associated neuroimaging data indicate that the two treatment conditions were associated with different neural activation changes. The patient who received the standard PCA showed significant increase in activation with treatment in the right anterior cingulate, as well as extensive areas in bilateral posterior and lateral cortices. By contrast, the patient who received intensive PCA showed more decreases in activation following the treatment. Unexpectedly, this patient showed subcortical increase in activation, specifically in the right caudate nucleus. We speculate that the recruitment of the caudate nucleus and the anterior cingulate in these patients reflects the need to suppress errors to improve naming. Thus, both short-term intensive and standard, non-intensive, PCA treatment can improve word retrieval in chronic aphasia, but neuroimaging data suggest that improved naming is associated with different neural activation patterns in the two treatment conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 5 8%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 23 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 15%
Psychology 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Linguistics 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,480,611
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,964
of 11,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,501
of 329,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#216
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 329,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.