MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117449290 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2025.2609803

The effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation on video action naming in individuals with post-stroke aphasia

2025· article· en· W7117449290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer Society
KeywordsAphasiaAction (physics)StimulationBrain stimulationVideo recording

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it