ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2017
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Post-stroke Chronic Aphasia: The Impact of Baseline Severity and Task Specificity in a Pilot Sample.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques to improve reading difficulties in dyslexia: A systematic review.Human brain mapping · 2022Pooled it
- Can Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Facilitate Post-stroke Cognitive Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- White matter predictors of cerebellar tDCS treatment effects in aphasia rehabilitation.Frontiers in neurologyTrial
- Neuromodulation for post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: established cortical stimulation and emerging network-based targets.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Aphasia rehabilitation: a narrative review of adjuvant techniques.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Native learning ability and not age determines the effects of brain stimulation.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- Metaplastic neuromodulation via transcranial direct current stimulation has no effect on corticospinal excitability and neuromuscular fatigue.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Ameliorate Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Targeted neurorehabilitation strategies in post-stroke aphasia.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2023Review
- Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation as an Adjunct to Verb Network Strengthening Treatment in Post-stroke Chronic Aphasia: A Double-Blinded Randomized Feasibility Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Adjunctive Approaches to Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Review on Efficacy and Safety.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation and Behavioral Training, a Promising Tool for a Tailor-Made Post-stroke Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Review
- Neuromodulation in post-stroke aphasia treatment.Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2020Article
- Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation May Improve Discourse Production in Healthy Older Adults.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Effect of Anodal tDCS on Articulatory Accuracy, Word Production, and Syllable Repetition in Subjects with Aphasia: A Crossover, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial.Neurology and therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
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.