ReviewBrain sciences2025
Neural Bases of Language Recovery After Stroke Can Only Be Fully Understood Through Longitudinal Studies of Individuals.
Review in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The nonlinear trajectory of post-stroke aphasia recovery.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Despite decades of intense interest and investment in cognitive science, there remains a not only incomplete but also highly inconsistent body of evidence regarding how adult brains recover from even the most focal injuries associated with stroke. In this paper, I provide a broad narrative review of the studies of post-stroke aphasia recovery that have sought to identify the mechanisms of language recovery through longitudinal functional imaging. I start with studies that used functional imaging in groups of neurotypical individuals that have revealed areas of the brain that are reliably activated by language tasks and are functionally connected, referred to here as the "language network." I then review group studies in which functional imaging data were averaged across groups of people with post-stroke aphasia to characterize the neurobiology of recovery. These group studies of post-stroke aphasia have yielded very different results and have led to conflicting conclusions. Subsequently, I examine results of studies of single subjects that have employed longitudinal functional imaging to identify mechanisms of language recovery. Together, these single subject studies make it clear that mechanisms of neural recovery are far from uniform, even in people with very similar lesions and time since stroke. On this basis, I argue that it is not justifiable to average functional imaging data across individuals with post-stroke aphasia to draw meaningful insights into how brain networks change to support language recovery. Each individual's brain networks change over time, but in divergent ways that depend on the extent of disruption to the normal language network, interventions to facilitate recovery, the health of the intact brain, and other variables yet to be identified. While averaging results across participants with post-stroke aphasia might be able to identify certain changes in the networks that are correlated with specific language gains, uncovering the range of mechanisms and dynamics of language recovery after stroke requires longitudinal imaging of individuals.
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.