MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3187106493 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2021.1959015

Behavioural and neurophysiological responses to written naming treatment and high definition tDCS: a case study in advanced primary progressive aphasia

2021· article· en· W3187106493 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAphasiology · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoHeart and Stroke FoundationBaycrest Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesCanada Research Chairs
Mots-clésTranscranial direct-current stimulationPsychologyPrimary progressive aphasiaMagnetoencephalographyAphasiaContext (archaeology)NeurophysiologySupramarginal gyrusNeuroscienceAudiologyBrain stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectroencephalographyStimulationMedicineFunctional magnetic resonance imaging

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is associated with progressive loss of language functions in the context of irreversible neurodegeneration, for which there is no cure. Speech-language therapy can help preserve language abilities, and most promisingly, interventions like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been shown to augment the effectiveness of therapy. However, the underlying mechanism for this enhancement is unknown.Objectives: We evaluated the behavioural and physiological (using resting-state magnetoencephalography [rsMEG]) effects of contemporary naming treatment provided with tDCS in a patient with an advanced case of nonfluent variant PPA (P01; 67 year old male). P01 was mute but had preserved written abilities, which we aimed to enhance with written naming therapy and excitatory or anodal-tDCS. We hypothesized greater improvement in written performance, particularly immediate gains, maintenance, and generalization, after anodal- than sham-tDCS. Additionally, reductions in oscillatory abnormal activity, as indicated by rsMEG, were expected after repeated sessions of anodal-tDCS with the naming treatment.Methods: A written picture naming therapy was paired with five sessions of anodal and five sessions of sham high-definition tDCS over two weeks. Anatomical and neurophysiological abnormalities were mapped with structural-MRI and rsMEG, respectively. TDCS was targeted towards an anatomically intact left supramarginal gyrus. The therapy-induced changes in written performance were evaluated on both trained and untrained pictures using Levenshtein Distances (LD). The neurophysiological changes were evaluated by comparing spectral relative power estimates in frequency bands ranging from delta to low-gamma (1–50 Hz), before and after therapy. All evaluations were completed immediately after therapy with sham- and anodal-tDCS, and at a 3-month follow-up.Results: Compared to sham-tDCS, anodal-tDCS augmented the immediate therapy-induced gains on trained items, as indicated by reductions in LD scores, reflecting improvement in written performance, particularly for more difficult target words. Neural activity at the stimulation spot and in surrounding and remote regions exhibited reduced oscillatory slowing, both immediately after one session (short-term) and after completion of five sessions (long-term) of anodal-tDCS compared to sham-tDCS. This is manifested as decreased theta (1–4 Hz) and increased beta and low-gamma (15–50 Hz) power. No additional gains with anodal-tDCS were found on untrained items (generalization) or at 3-month follow-up (maintenance).Conclusions: Our findings suggest that five sessions of anodal-tDCS can improve written performance by partially reversing abnormal neural activity and thus boosting the functional capacity of the structurally intact cortex. Longer duration of treatment may be needed for additional gains in maintenance and generalization with anodal-tDCS.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,596
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,664

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,332
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle