Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35178518›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2022

Aphasia recovery by language training using a brain-computer interface: a proof-of-concept study.

Mariacristina Musso, David Hübner, Sarah Schwarzkopf, Maria Bernodusson, Pierre LeVan, Cornelius Weiller, Michael Tangermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Brain-computer interface: an update for the clinicians.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mariacristina MussoDepartment of Neurology and Neurophysiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany.
David HübnerCluster of Excellence, BrainLinks-BrainTools, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Sarah SchwarzkopfDepartment of Neurology and Neurophysiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Maria BernodussonCluster of Excellence, BrainLinks-BrainTools, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Pierre LeVanCluster of Excellence, BrainLinks-BrainTools, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Cornelius WeillerDepartment of Neurology and Neurophysiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-5714
Michael TangermannCluster of Excellence, BrainLinks-BrainTools, University of Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6729-0290

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aphasia, the impairment to understand or produce language, is a frequent disorder after stroke with devastating effects. Conventional speech and language therapy include each formal intervention for improving language and communication abilities. In the chronic stage after stroke, it is effective compared with no treatment, but its effect size is small. We present a new language training approach for the rehabilitation of patients with aphasia based on a brain-computer interface system. The approach exploits its capacity to provide feedback time-locked to a brain state. Thus, it implements the idea that reinforcing an appropriate language processing strategy may induce beneficial brain plasticity. In our approach, patients perform a simple auditory target word detection task whilst their EEG was recorded. The constant decoding of these signals by machine learning models generates an individual and immediate brain-state-dependent feedback. It indicates to patients how well they accomplish the task during a training session, even if they are unable to speak. Results obtained from a proof-of-concept study with 10 stroke patients with mild to severe chronic aphasia (age range: 38-76 years) are remarkable. First, we found that the high-intensity training (30 h, 4 days per week) was feasible, despite a high-word presentation speed and unfavourable stroke-induced EEG signal characteristics. Second, the training induced a sustained recovery of aphasia, which generalized to multiple language aspects beyond the trained task. Specifically, all tested language assessments (Aachen Aphasia Test, Snodgrass & Vanderwart, Communicative Activity Log) showed significant medium to large improvements between pre- and post-training, with a standardized mean difference of 0.63 obtained for the Aachen Aphasia Test, and five patients categorized as non-aphasic at post-training assessment. Third, our data show that these language improvements were accompanied neither by significant changes in attention skills nor non-linguistic skills. Investigating possible modes of action of this brain-computer interface-based language training, neuroimaging data (EEG and resting-state functional MRI) indicates a training-induced faster word processing, a strengthened language network and a rebalancing between the language- and default mode networks.

Indexed as

aphasia rehabilitationbrain–computer interfacechronic strokelanguage trainingneurofeedback training

Identifiers

PMID35178518
PMCPMC8846581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.