Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Treatment of Right- and Left-Handed Poststroke Aphasics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence from single case studies, small case series and randomized controlled trials seems to suggest that inhibitory noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) over the contralesional inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) of right-handers in conjunction with speech and language therapy (SLT) improves recovery from poststroke aphasia. Application of inhibitory NIBS to improve recovery in left-handed patients has not yet been reported. METHODS: A total of 29 right-handed subacute poststroke aphasics were randomized to receive either 10 sessions of SLT following 20 min of inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the contralesional IFG or 10 sessions of SLT following sham stimulation; 2 left-handers were treated according to the same protocol with real rTMS. Language activation patterns were assessed with positron emission tomography prior to and after the treatment; 95% confidence intervals for changes in language performance scores and the activated brain volumes in both hemispheres were derived from TMS- and sham-treated right-handed patients and compared to the same parameters in left-handers. RESULTS: Right-handed patients treated with rTMS showed better recovery of language function in global aphasia test scores (t test, p < 0.002) as well as in picture-naming performance (ANOVA, p = 0.03) than sham-treated right-handers. In treated right-handers, a shift of activation to the ipsilesional hemisphere was observed, while sham-treated patients consolidated network activity in the contralesional hemisphere (repeated-measures ANOVA, p = 0.009). Both left-handed patients also improved, with 1 patient within the confidence limits of TMS-treated right-handers (23 points, 15.9-28.9) and the other patient within the limits of sham-treated subjects (8 points, 2.8-14.5). Both patients exhibited only a very small interhemispheric shift, much less than expected in TMS-treated right-handers, and more or less consolidated initially active networks in both hemispheres. CONCLUSION: Inhibitory rTMS over the nondominant IFG appears to be a safe and effective treatment for right-handed poststroke aphasics. In the 2 cases of left-handed aphasics no deterioration of language performance was observed with this protocol. However, therapeutic efficiency is less obvious and seems to be more related to the dominance pattern prior to the stroke than to the TMS intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".