Abstract

Aphasia recovery post-stroke is classically and most commonly hypothesised to rely on regions that were not involved in language premorbidly, through ‘neurocomputational invasion’ or engagement of ‘quiescent homologues’. Contemporary accounts have suggested, instead, that recovery might be supported by under-utilised areas of the premorbid language network, which are downregulated in health to save neural resources (‘variable neurodisplacement’). Despite the importance of understanding the neural bases of language recovery clinically and theoretically, there is no consensus as to which specific regions are more likely to be activated in post-stroke aphasia (PSA) than healthy individuals. Accordingly, we performed an Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analysis of language functional neuroimaging studies in PSA. We obtained coordinate-based functional neuroimaging data for 481 individuals with aphasia following left-hemisphere stroke and 530 linked controls from 33 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. ALE identified regions of consistent, above-chance spatial convergence of activation, as well as regions of significantly different activation likelihood, between participant groups and language tasks. Overall, these findings dispute the prevailing theory that aphasia recovery involves recruitment of novel right hemisphere territory into the language network post-stroke. Instead, multiple regions throughout both hemispheres were consistently activated during language tasks in both PSA and controls. Regions of the right anterior insula, frontal operculum and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) pars opercularis were more likely to be activated across all language tasks in PSA than controls. Similar regions were more likely to be activated during higher than lower demand comprehension or production tasks, consistent with them representing enhanced utilisation of spare capacity within right hemisphere executive-control related regions. This provides novel evidence that ‘variable neurodisplacement’ underlies language network changes that occur post-stroke. Conversely, multiple undamaged regions were less likely to be activated across all language tasks in PSA than controls, including domain-general regions of medial superior frontal and paracingulate cortex, right IFG pars triangularis and temporal pole. These changes might represent functional diaschisis, and demonstrate that there is not global, undifferentiated upregulation of all domain-general neural resources during language in PSA. Such knowledge is essential if we are to design neurobiologically-informed therapeutic interventions to facilitate language recovery.

Highlights

  • Post-stroke aphasia (PSA) is prevalent and debilitating (Engelter et al, 2006) and recovery of function tends to be variable and often incomplete (Yagata et al, 2017)

  • These include: (a) which regions, if any, are more or less likely to be activated in PSA than healthy individuals across all language tasks and do these regions differ between language tasks of different nature; (b) are regions upregulated in PSA modulated by task difficulty; and (c) do the differentially activated regions vary between different stages of recovery

  • We define the language network as regions consistently activated during language, which might include both language-specific regions, reportedly activated during language but not non-language tasks (Fedorenko et al, 2011; Pritchett et al, 2018), as well as domain-general regions activated during both language and non-language tasks (Fedorenko et al, 2013; Geranmayeh et al, 2017)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Post-stroke aphasia (PSA) is prevalent and debilitating (Engelter et al, 2006) and recovery of function tends to be variable and often incomplete (Yagata et al, 2017). While previous studies have explored which set of regions are consistently activated in PSA (Turkeltaub et al, 2011), multiple key questions remain unanswered. These include: (a) which regions, if any, are more or less likely to be activated in PSA than healthy individuals across all language tasks and do these regions differ between language tasks of different nature (comprehension vs production); (b) are regions upregulated in PSA modulated by task difficulty (higher vs lower demand); and (c) do the differentially activated regions vary between different stages of recovery. Below, with respect to three major themes

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call