ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Neuromodulation for post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: established cortical stimulation and emerging network-based targets.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-stroke aphasia is a disabling disorder of language and communication for which speech-language therapy remains the standard of care. Because behavioural treatment yields variable gains and many people retain chronic communication limitations, non-invasive neuromodulation has been investigated to increase the responsiveness of residual language networks to therapy. This narrative review critically integrates evidence available through July 2026 for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and emerging approaches targeting the cerebellum, spinal sensorimotor pathways, and cellular metabolism. Recent meta-analyses support small-to-moderate average benefits of adjunctive cortical stimulation, especially for naming, but these estimates coexist with marked heterogeneity, small trials and incomplete evidence for generalisation, durability, functional communication, and quality of life. Recent randomised studies illustrate the value of pairing stimulation with a defined learning task and of using lesion, tract, functional-connectivity, or hemodynamic information to select targets and predict response. Cerebellar tDCS, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, transcranial alternating current stimulation, and transcranial photobiomodulation are conceptually attractive but remain investigational because the clinical evidence is limited, inconsistent, or based on uncontrolled and proof-of-concept studies. Across modalities, serious adverse events are uncommon when contemporary screening and dosing guidance are followed, although stroke-specific comorbidity and seizure risk require trained supervision. Neuromodulation should therefore be viewed as a potentially useful, state-dependent amplifier of speech-language therapy rather than a replacement for it. Progress towards routine care will require adequately powered multisite trials, preregistered patient-level stratification, treatment-fidelity reporting, ecologically valid outcomes, longer follow-up, and direct comparisons of personalised with fixed protocols.
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.