A unified model of post-stroke language deficits including discourse production and their neural correlates.


Journal

Brain : a journal of neurology
ISSN: 1460-2156
Titre abrégé: Brain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372537

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 05 2020
Historique:
received: 14 10 2019
revised: 14 01 2020
accepted: 02 02 2020
pubmed: 25 4 2020
medline: 15 12 2020
entrez: 25 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The clinical profiles of individuals with post-stroke aphasia demonstrate considerable variation in the presentation of symptoms. Recent aphasiological studies have attempted to account for this individual variability using a multivariate data-driven approach (principal component analysis) on an extensive neuropsychological and aphasiological battery, to identify fundamental domains of post-stroke aphasia. These domains mainly reflect phonology, semantics and fluency; however, these studies did not account for variability in response to different forms of connected speech, i.e. discourse genres. In the current study, we initially examined differences in the quantity, diversity and informativeness between three different discourse genres, including a simple descriptive genre and two naturalistic forms of connected speech (storytelling narrative, and procedural discourse). Subsequently, we provided the first quantitative investigation on the multidimensionality of connected speech production at both behavioural and neural levels. Connected speech samples across descriptive, narrative, and procedural discourse genres were collected from 46 patients with chronic post-stroke aphasia and 20 neurotypical adults. Content analyses conducted on all connected speech samples indicated that performance differed across discourse genres and between groups. Specifically, storytelling narratives provided higher quantities of content words and lexical diversity compared to composite picture description and procedural discourse. The analyses further revealed that, relative to neurotypical adults, patients with aphasia, both fluent and non-fluent, showed reduction in the quantity of verbal production, lexical diversity, and informativeness across all discourses. Given the differences across the discourses, we submitted the connected speech metrics to principal component analysis alongside an extensive neuropsychological/aphasiological battery that assesses a wide range of language and cognitive skills. In contrast to previous research, three unique orthogonal connected speech components were extracted in a unified model, reflecting verbal quantity, verbal quality, and motor speech, alongside four core language and cognitive components: phonological production, semantic processing, phonological recognition, and executive functions. Voxel-wise lesion-symptom mapping using these components provided evidence on the involvement of widespread cortical regions and their white matter connections. Specifically, left frontal regions and their underlying white matter tracts corresponding to the frontal aslant tract and the anterior segment of the arcuate fasciculus were particularly engaged with the quantity and quality of fluent connected speech production while controlling for other co-factors. The neural correlates associated with the other language domains align with existing models on the ventral and dorsal pathways for language processing.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32330940
pii: 5824903
doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa074
pmc: PMC7241958
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1541-1554

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00005/18
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R023883/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.

Références

Brain. 2013 Nov;136(Pt 11):3451-60
pubmed: 24131592
Dev Sci. 2019 Mar;22(2):e12744
pubmed: 30159951
Nat Neurosci. 2003 May;6(5):448-50
pubmed: 12704393
Brain. 2012 Dec;135(Pt 12):3799-814
pubmed: 23171662
Brain. 2014 Dec;137(Pt 12):3248-66
pubmed: 25348632
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 May;31(5):442-450
pubmed: 28135902
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 21;107(38):16494-9
pubmed: 20807747
Cognition. 2004 May-Jun;92(1-2):67-99
pubmed: 15037127
Brain Lang. 1983 Mar;18(2):315-41
pubmed: 6188512
Cortex. 2012 Feb;48(2):133-43
pubmed: 21802076
Brain Lang. 2015 Mar;142:54-64
pubmed: 25658634
Psychol Rev. 1997 Oct;104(4):801-38
pubmed: 9337631
Neuroimage Clin. 2012 Aug 30;1(1):37-47
pubmed: 24179735
Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Feb;22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75
pubmed: 11301520
Cortex. 2012 Nov-Dec;48(10):1262-87
pubmed: 22995574
Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(5):771-8
pubmed: 15721189
Stroke. 2015 Jun;46(6):1561-6
pubmed: 25908457
Aphasiology. 2011 Sep 1;25(9):998-1015
pubmed: 22180696
Neuropsychology. 2009 Jul;23(4):492-9
pubmed: 19586212
Cortex. 2017 Jan;86:275-289
pubmed: 27216359
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Oct;25(10):3547-60
pubmed: 25205661
J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Apr;36(2):338-50
pubmed: 8487525
Brain. 2006 Dec;129(Pt 12):3315-28
pubmed: 16984899
Cortex. 2020 Mar;124:260-273
pubmed: 31958653
J Neurosci. 2010 Aug 18;30(33):11057-61
pubmed: 20720112
Brain. 2013 Aug;136(Pt 8):2619-28
pubmed: 23820597
Front Psychol. 2011 Sep 16;2:237
pubmed: 21954392
J Neurosci. 2005 Aug 31;25(35):8010-6
pubmed: 16135758
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):968-80
pubmed: 16530430
Neuropsychologia. 2007 Jun 18;45(11):2525-33
pubmed: 17499317
Ann Neurol. 2004 Dec;56(6):836-46
pubmed: 15514975
Trends Neurosci. 2000 Oct;23(10):475-83
pubmed: 11006464
Aphasiology. 2011;25(11):1414-1430
pubmed: 23125474
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 Jan 31;18:215-230
pubmed: 29868446
Nat Commun. 2015 Apr 16;6:6762
pubmed: 25879574
Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Dec 06;17:811-825
pubmed: 29619318
Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 15;62(2):816-47
pubmed: 22584224
Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(9):1207-15
pubmed: 10865096
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Nov 18;105(46):18035-40
pubmed: 19004769
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2017 Sep;34(6):333-346
pubmed: 29145761
Brain. 2013 Feb;136(Pt 2):619-29
pubmed: 23378217
Stroke. 2011 Aug;42(8):2251-6
pubmed: 21719773
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Oct;77:62-75
pubmed: 26247320
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Oct 17;8:845
pubmed: 25368572
Brain Lang. 1983 Jul;19(2):317-34
pubmed: 6192869
Brain Struct Funct. 2015 Nov;220(6):3399-412
pubmed: 25086832

Auteurs

Reem S W Alyahya (RSW)

MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Ajay D Halai (AD)

MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Paul Conroy (P)

Division of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Matthew A Lambon Ralph (MA)

MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH