ArticleAphasiology2012
Epidural cortical stimulation and aphasia therapy.
Article in Aphasiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Piracetam for Aphasia in Post-stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.CNS drugs · 2016Pooled it
- Right C7 neurotomy at the intervertebral foramen plus intensive speech and language therapy versus intensive speech and language therapy alone for chronic post-stroke aphasia: multicentre, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
- Reversible Functional Changes Evoked by Anodal Epidural Direct Current Electrical Stimulation of the Rat Auditory Cortex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Rethinking stimulation of the brain in stroke rehabilitation: why higher motor areas might be better alternatives for patients with greater impairments.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2015Article
- Invasive neurostimulation in stroke rehabilitation.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are several methods of delivering cortical brain stimulation to modulate cortical excitability and interest in their application as an adjuvant strategy in aphasia rehabilitation after stroke is growing. Epidural cortical stimulation, although more invasive than other methods, permits high frequency stimulation of high spatial specificity to targeted neuronal populations.
aimsFirst, we review evidence supporting the use of epidural cortical stimulation for upper limb recovery after focal cortical injury in both animal models and human stroke survivors. These data provide the empirical and theoretical platform underlying the use of epidural cortical stimulation in aphasia. Second, we summarize evidence for the application of epidural cortical stimulation in aphasia. We describe the procedures and primary outcomes of a safety and feasibility study (Cherney, Erickson & Small, 2010), and provide previously unpublished data regarding secondary behavioral outcomes from that study. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: In a controlled study comparing epidural cortical stimulation plus language treatment (CS/LT) to language treatment alone (LT), eight stroke survivors with nonfluent aphasia received intensive language therapy for 6 weeks. Four of these participants also underwent surgical implantation of an epidural stimulation device which was activated only during therapy sessions. Behavioral data were collected before treatment, immediately after treatment, and at 6 and 12 weeks following the end of treatment. The effect size for the primary outcome measure, the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient, was benchmarked as moderate from baseline to immediately post-treatment, and large from baseline to the 12-week follow-up. Similarly, effect sizes obtained at the 12-week follow-up for the Boston Naming Test, the Communicative Effectiveness Index, and for correct information units on a picture description task were greater than those obtained immediately post treatment. When effect sizes were compared for individual subject pairs on discourse measures of content and rate, effects were typically larger for the investigational subjects receiving CS/LT than for the control subjects receiving LT alone. These analyses support previous findings regarding therapeutic efficacy of CS/LT compared to LT i.e. epidural stimulation of ipsilesional premotor cortex may augment behavioral speech-language therapy, with the largest effects after completion of therapy.
conclusionsContinued investigation of epidural cortical stimulation in combination with language training in post-stroke aphasia should proceed cautiously. Carefully planned studies that customize procedures to individual profiles are warranted. Information from research on non-invasive methods of CS/LT may also inform future studies of epidural cortical stimulation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.