The effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation on video action naming in individuals with post-stroke aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) has shown its potential in language recovery in post-stroke aphasia. While previous studies have focused mainly on the recovery of common nouns, few have examined its effect on action naming. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of ipsilesional iTBS applied to the left pars opercularis of the inferior frontal gyrus on action naming abilities in individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia.Method Three individuals with fluent and three with non-fluent chronic left post-stroke aphasia completed a baseline assessment followed by a two-week iTBS intervention. Stimulation was delivered at 80% of active motor threshold using a 50 Hz protocol (200 s per session) to the pars opercularis of the inferior frontal gyrus. Action naming performance was assessed with a video action naming task.Results Significant improvements were observed in action naming following the iTBS intervention for all participants, although non-fluent participants showed lower scores than fluent participants. In contrast, no participant showed improvement on the working memory task after iTBS intervention.Conclusions These findings reinforce the potential of iTBS as a neuromodulatory approach for anomia rehabilitation in both fluent and non-fluent chronic post-stroke aphasia. Beyond confirming the effectiveness of iTBS in word retrieval, this study extends its benefits to action naming and offers a promising avenue for the improvement of action production. Additionally, the results point to the specific involvement of the pars opercularis of the left inferior frontal gyrus in action naming.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".