↓ Skip to main content

Individualized treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic non-fluent aphasia due to stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Individualized treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic non-fluent aphasia due to stroke
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priyanka P. Shah-Basak, Catherine Norise, Gabriella Garcia, Jose Torres, Olufunsho Faseyitan, Roy H. Hamilton

Abstract

While evidence suggests that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may facilitate language recovery in chronic post-stroke aphasia, individual variability in patient response to different patterns of stimulation remains largely unexplored. We sought to characterize this variability among chronic aphasic individuals, and to explore whether repeated stimulation with an individualized optimal montage could lead to persistent reduction of aphasia severity. In a two-phase study, we first stimulated patients with four active montages (left hemispheric anode or cathode; right hemispheric anode or cathode) and one sham montage (Phase 1). We examined changes in picture naming ability to address (1) variability in response to different montages among our patients, and (2) whether individual patients responded optimally to at least one montage. During Phase 2, subjects who responded in Phase 1 were randomized to receive either real-tDCS or to receive sham stimulation (10 days); patients who were randomized to receive sham stimulation first were then crossed over to receive real-tDCS (10 days). In both phases, 2 mA tDCS was administered for 20 min per real-tDCS sessions and patients performed a picture naming task during stimulation. Patients' language ability was re-tested after 2-weeks and 2-months following real and sham tDCS in Phase 2. In Phase 1, despite considerable individual variability, the greatest average improvement was observed after left-cathodal stimulation. Seven out of 12 subjects responded optimally to at least one montage as demonstrated by transient improvement in picture-naming. In Phase 2, aphasia severity improved at 2-weeks and 2-months following real-tDCS but not sham. Despite individual variability with respect to optimal tDCS approach, certain montages result in consistent transient improvement in persons with chronic post-stroke aphasia. This preliminary study supports the notion that individualized tDCS treatment may enhance aphasia recovery in a persistent manner.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 169 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 19%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Unspecified 9 5%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 31 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 17%
Neuroscience 30 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Unspecified 8 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 47 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,630,264
of 23,253,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,069
of 7,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,360
of 266,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#67
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,253,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 266,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.