↓ Skip to main content

Electrical stimulation of the motor cortex enhances treatment outcome in post-stroke aphasia

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
57 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
301 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Electrical stimulation of the motor cortex enhances treatment outcome in post-stroke aphasia
Published in
Brain, February 2016
DOI 10.1093/brain/aww002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus Meinzer, Robert Darkow, Robert Lindenberg, Agnes Flöel

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promise to improve recovery in patients with post-stroke aphasia, but previous studies have only assessed stimulation effects on impairment parameters, and evidence for long-term maintenance of transcranial direct current stimulation effects from randomized, controlled trials is lacking. Moreover, due to the variability of lesions and functional language network reorganization after stroke, recent studies have used advanced functional imaging or current modelling to determine optimal stimulation sites in individual patients. However, such approaches are expensive, time consuming and may not be feasible outside of specialized research centres, which complicates incorporation of transcranial direct current stimulation in day-to-day clinical practice. Stimulation of an ancillary system that is functionally connected to the residual language network, namely the primary motor system, would be more easily applicable, but effectiveness of such an approach has not been explored systematically. We conducted a randomized, parallel group, sham-controlled, double-blind clinical trial and 26 patients with chronic aphasia received a highly intensive naming therapy over 2 weeks (8 days, 2 × 1.5 h/day). Concurrently, anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation was administered to the left primary motor cortex twice daily at the beginning of each training session. Naming ability for trained items (n = 60 pictures that could not be named during repeated baseline assessments), transfer to untrained items (n = 284 pictures) and generalization to everyday communication were assessed immediately post-intervention and 6 months later. Naming ability for trained items was significantly improved immediately after the end of the intervention in both the anodal (Cohen's d = 3.67) and sham-transcranial direct current stimulation groups (d = 2.10), with a trend for larger gains in the anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation group (d = 0.71). Treatment effects for trained items were significantly better maintained in the anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation group 6 months later (d = 1.19). Transfer to untrained items was significantly larger in the anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation group after the training (d = 1.49) and during the 6 month follow-up assessment (d = 3.12). Transfer effects were only maintained in the anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation group. Functional communication was significantly more improved in the anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation group at both time points compared to patients treated with sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (d = 0.75-0.99). Our results provide the first evidence from a randomized, controlled trial that transcranial direct current stimulation can improve both function and activity-related outcomes in chronic aphasia, with medium to large effect sizes, and that these effects are maintained over extended periods of time. These effects were achieved with an easy-to-implement and thus clinically feasible motor-cortex montage that may represent a promising 'backdoor' approach to improve language recovery after stroke.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 297 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 15%
Student > Master 44 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Professor 12 4%
Other 58 19%
Unknown 68 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 55 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 14%
Psychology 35 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Other 42 14%
Unknown 88 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 164. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#253,616
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#192
of 7,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,367
of 312,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#7
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.