↓ Skip to main content

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Perilesional Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Aphasia: A Feasibility Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Neural Mechanisms Underlying Perilesional Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Aphasia: A Feasibility Study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00550
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lena Ulm, Katie McMahon, David Copland, Greig I. de Zubicaray, Marcus Meinzer

Abstract

Little is known about the neural mechanisms by which transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) impacts on language processing in post-stroke aphasia. This was addressed in a proof-of-principle study that explored the effects of tDCS application in aphasia during simultaneous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We employed a single subject, cross-over, sham-tDCS controlled design, and the stimulation was administered to an individualized perilesional stimulation site that was identified by a baseline fMRI scan and a picture naming task. Peak activity during the baseline scan was located in the spared left inferior frontal gyrus and this area was stimulated during a subsequent cross-over phase. tDCS was successfully administered to the target region and anodal- vs. sham-tDCS resulted in selectively increased activity at the stimulation site. Our results thus demonstrate that it is feasible to precisely target an individualized stimulation site in aphasia patients during simultaneous fMRI, which allows assessing the neural mechanisms underlying tDCS application. The functional imaging results of this case report highlight one possible mechanism that may have contributed to beneficial behavioral stimulation effects in previous clinical tDCS trials in aphasia. In the future, this approach will allow identifying distinct patterns of stimulation effects on neural processing in larger cohorts of patients. This may ultimately yield information about the variability of tDCS effects on brain functions in aphasia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 92 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 20%
Neuroscience 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,293,238
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,541
of 7,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,347
of 278,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#137
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.