↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Post-stroke Chronic Aphasia: The Impact of Baseline Severity and Task Specificity in a Pilot Sample

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Post-stroke Chronic Aphasia: The Impact of Baseline Severity and Task Specificity in a Pilot Sample
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00260
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Norise, Daniela Sacchetti, Roy Hamilton

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve aspects of language production in persons with chronic non-fluent aphasia due to left hemisphere stroke. However, to date, studies exploring factors that predict response to tDCS in this or any patient population remain sparse, as are studies that investigate the specific aspects of language performance that are most responsive to stimulation. The current study explored factors that could predict recovery of language fluency and which aspects of language fluency could be expected to improve with the identified factor(s). We report nine patients who demonstrated deficits in fluency as assessed using the Cookie Theft picture description task of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. In the treatment condition, subjects received a 2.0 mA current through 5 cm × 5 cm electrodes for 20 min at a site previously shown to elicit a patient-dependent optimal response to tDCS. They were then tested 2-weeks and 2-months after treatment. In the sham condition, a subset of these subjects were tested on the same protocol with sham instead of real tDCS. The current study assessed language fluency improvements in measures of production at the word-level and sentence level, grammatical accuracy, and lexical selection as a function of baseline aphasia severity. A more severe baseline language profile was associated with larger improvements in fluency at the word-level after real tDCS but not sham stimulation. These improvements were maintained at the 2-week follow-up. The results suggest that for at least some outcome measures, baseline severity may be an important factor in predicting the response to tDCS in patients with chronic non-fluent aphasia. Moving forward, the ability to identify patient factors that can predict response could help refine strategies for the administration of therapeutic tDCS, focusing attention on those patients most likely to benefit from stimulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Other 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 24%
Neuroscience 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 35 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#8,448,015
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,418
of 7,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,701
of 320,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#96
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 320,644 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.