» Articles » PMID: 27014039

The Relationship Between Frontotemporal Effective Connectivity During Picture Naming, Behavior, and Preserved Cortical Tissue in Chronic Aphasia

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2016 Mar 26
PMID 27014039
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

While several studies of task-based effective connectivity of normal language processing exist, little is known about the functional reorganization of language networks in patients with stroke-induced chronic aphasia. During oral picture naming, activation in neurologically intact individuals is found in "classic" language regions involved with retrieval of lexical concepts [e.g., left middle temporal gyrus (LMTG)], word form encoding [e.g., left posterior superior temporal gyrus, (LpSTG)], and controlled retrieval of semantic and phonological information [e.g., left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG)] as well as domain-general regions within the multiple demands network [e.g., left middle frontal gyrus (LMFG)]. After stroke, lesions to specific parts of the left hemisphere language network force reorganization of this system. While individuals with aphasia have been found to recruit similar regions for language tasks as healthy controls, the relationship between the dynamic functioning of the language network and individual differences in underlying neural structure and behavioral performance is still unknown. Therefore, in the present study, we used dynamic causal modeling (DCM) to investigate differences between individuals with aphasia and healthy controls in terms of task-induced regional interactions between three regions (i.e., LIFG, LMFG, and LMTG) vital for picture naming. The DCM model space was organized according to exogenous input to these regions and partitioned into separate families. At the model level, random effects family wise Bayesian Model Selection revealed that models with driving input to LIFG best fit the control data whereas models with driving input to LMFG best fit the patient data. At the parameter level, a significant between-group difference in the connection strength from LMTG to LIFG was seen. Within the patient group, several significant relationships between network connectivity parameters, spared cortical tissue, and behavior were observed. Overall, this study provides some preliminary findings regarding how neural networks for language reorganize for individuals with aphasia and how brain connectivity relates to underlying structural integrity and task performance.

Citing Articles

Effects of low-frequency rTMS combined with speech and language therapy on Broca's aphasia in subacute stroke patients.

Gan L, Huang L, Zhang Y, Yang X, Li L, Meng L Front Neurol. 2024; 15:1473254.

PMID: 39539660 PMC: 11557360. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1473254.


Disentangling neuroplasticity mechanisms in post-stroke language recovery.

Billot A, Kiran S Brain Lang. 2024; 251:105381.

PMID: 38401381 PMC: 10981555. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2024.105381.


Cerebral Small Vessel Disease Burden: An Independent Biomarker for Anomia Treatment Responsiveness in Chronic Stroke Patients With Aphasia.

Varkanitsa M, Penaloza C, Charidimou A, Kiran S Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023; 104(10):1630-1637.

PMID: 37290492 PMC: 10543408. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.05.008.


Abnormally weak functional connections get stronger in chronic stroke patients who benefit from naming therapy.

Johnson J, Meier E, Pan Y, Kiran S Brain Lang. 2021; 223:105042.

PMID: 34695614 PMC: 8638784. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105042.


Simultaneous Normalization and Compensatory Changes in Right Hemisphere Connectivity during Aphasia Therapy.

Truzman T, Rochon E, Meltzer J, Leonard C, Bitan T Brain Sci. 2021; 11(10).

PMID: 34679395 PMC: 8534113. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11101330.


References
1.
Brett M, Johnsrude I, Owen A . The problem of functional localization in the human brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3(3):243-9. DOI: 10.1038/nrn756. View

2.
Jeon H, Lee K, Kim Y, Cho Z . Neural substrates of semantic relationships: common and distinct left-frontal activities for generation of synonyms vs. antonyms. Neuroimage. 2009; 48(2):449-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.049. View

3.
Dell G, SCHWARTZ M, Martin N, Saffran E, Gagnon D . Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychol Rev. 1997; 104(4):801-38. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.104.4.801. View

4.
Crosson B, McGregor K, Gopinath K, Conway T, Benjamin M, Chang Y . Functional MRI of language in aphasia: a review of the literature and the methodological challenges. Neuropsychol Rev. 2007; 17(2):157-77. PMC: 2659355. DOI: 10.1007/s11065-007-9024-z. View

5.
den Ouden D, Saur D, Mader W, Schelter B, Lukic S, Wali E . Network modulation during complex syntactic processing. Neuroimage. 2011; 59(1):815-23. PMC: 3195988. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.057. View