Are the effects of tDCS in language rehabilitation in primary progressive aphasia specific to the task trained?
Year: 2017
Type: article
Abstract: Event Abstract Back to Event Are the effects of tDCS in language rehabilitation in primary progressive aphasia specific to the task trained? Bronte N. Ficek1, Kimberly T. Webster1, Tushar Chakravarty1, Constantine Frangakis2, Argye Hillis1 and Kyrana Tsapkini1* 1 Johns Hopkins Medicine, United States 2 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States Introduction: While there is an emerging literature in the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in language and cognitive therapies, it is not clear the extent to which tDCS works, nor the parameters around its most effective use. Frequency of stimulation, area of stimulation, clinical symptoms, and therapy task may influence its effectiveness for example (Au, Karsten, Buschkuehl, & Jaeggi, 2017), which may be determined by more sustained gains or transfer to untrained items. Generalization of language gains to untrained words within a therapy task has been found with tDCS coupled with language therapy compared to language therapy alone, even in neurodegenerative syndromes such as primary progressive aphasia (e.g. Cotelli et al., 2014; Tsapkini, Frangakis, Gomez, Davis, & Hillis, 2014). It is unclear, however, whether generalization of gains to other language or cognitive tasks can occur. In the present study, we assessed the effects of anodal tDCS over the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) coupled with oral and written naming therapy in 36 people with primary progressive aphasia. We aimed to assess whether the gains—in both trained and untrained items—generalize to untrained language and cognitive tasks that are related to therapy and for which the left IFG is a neural substrate. Methods: We used a within-subjects crossover design, with two phases of 15 consecutive days of either tDCS or sham therapy with a 2-month wash-out period. Anodal, left-IFG tDCS (2 mA/minute) was administered for 20 minutes each day, simultaneous with the start of daily, hour-long therapy. Language therapy incorporated oral and written naming in a spell-study-spell and copy-and-rehearse procedure (Beeson & Egnor, 2006; Rapp & Glucroft, 2009). Primary outcome measures were percentage of correct graphemes in a set of both trained and untrained items, evaluated before, after, 2 weeks post, and 2 months post therapy. Additional evaluation tasks at these time points included those assessing letter and category fluency, oral noun and verb naming, digit and spatial spans, syntactic comprehension, sentence repetition, non-verbal semantic association, sentence-anagram arrangement, verbal learning, and spelling words and nonwords. Results: We replicated our previous finding that tDCS was more beneficial than sham for performance in the therapy task: gains sustained longer and generalized to untrained items. However, there was no additional gain for tDCS over sham in any other task. This was for the group as a whole and for individual groups of each PPA variant. Verbal fluency and naming improved for some individuals in tDCS and/or sham conditions, but there was no additional gain for tDCS. There was no overall improvement in any other task for either stimulation condition. Discussion: These findings suggest that tDCS in PPA enhances performance in the therapy task only; choice of task is, thus, extremely important. This effect may be specific to PPA or to neurodegenerative conditions in which other language and cognitive functions are already in decline. These results also speak to the neuromodulatory nature of tDCS: direct-current stimulation of the brain may not be effective unless paired with a training task. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the participants in this project and for the support from the Science of Learning Institute of Johns Hopkins University and NIH/NIDCD R01 DC014475 to KT. References Au, J., Karsten, C., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2017). Optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation protocols to promote long-term learning. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(1), 65–72. Beeson, P. M., & Egnor, H. (2006). Combining treatment for written and spoken naming. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 12(6), 816–827. Cotelli, M., Manenti, R., Petesi, M., Brambilla, M., Cosseddu, M., Zanetti, O., … Borroni, B. (2014). Treatment of primary progressive aphasias by transcranial direct current stimulation combined with language training. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease : JAD, 39(4), 799–808. Rapp, B., & Glucroft, B. (2009). The benefits and protective effects of behavioural treatment for dysgraphia in a case of primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology, 23(2), 236–265. Tsapkini, K., Frangakis, C., Gomez, Y., Davis, C., & Hillis, A. E. (2014). Augmentation of spelling therapy with transcranial direct current stimulation in primary progressive aphasia: Preliminary results and challenges. Aphasiology, 28((8-9), 1112–1130. Keywords: primary progressive aphasia, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), generalization to non-therapy tasks, naming therapy, neurodegeneration Conference: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting , Baltimore, United States, 5 Nov - 7 Nov, 2017. Presentation Type: poster or oral Topic: General Submission Citation: Ficek BN, Webster KT, Chakravarty T, Frangakis C, Hillis A and Tsapkini K (2019). Are the effects of tDCS in language rehabilitation in primary progressive aphasia specific to the task trained?. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting . doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2017.223.00021 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 02 May 2017; Published Online: 25 Jan 2019. * Correspondence: Dr. Kyrana Tsapkini, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, United States, [email protected] Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Bronte N Ficek Kimberly T Webster Tushar Chakravarty Constantine Frangakis Argye Hillis Kyrana Tsapkini Google Bronte N Ficek Kimberly T Webster Tushar Chakravarty Constantine Frangakis Argye Hillis Kyrana Tsapkini Google Scholar Bronte N Ficek Kimberly T Webster Tushar Chakravarty Constantine Frangakis Argye Hillis Kyrana Tsapkini PubMed Bronte N Ficek Kimberly T Webster Tushar Chakravarty Constantine Frangakis Argye Hillis Kyrana Tsapkini Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.
Source: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Language: English
Subfield: Neurology
Field: Neuroscience
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $3,801
OpenAlex ID: W2913721697