Neuroscience of Aphasia Recovery: the Concept of Neural Multifunctionality
Abstract
Aphasia therapy, while demonstrably successful, has been limited by its primary focus on language, with relatively less attention paid to nonlinguistic factors (cognitive, affective, praxic) that play a major role in recovery from aphasia. Neuroscientific studies of the past 15-20 years have opened a breach in the wall of traditional clinico-anatomical teachings on aphasia. It is not an exaggeration to talk of a paradigm shift. The term "neural multifunctionality" denotes a complex web of neural networks supporting both linguistic and nonlinguistic functions in constant and dynamic interaction, creating language as we know it and contributing to recovery from aphasia following brain damage. This paper reviews scientific underpinnings of neural multifunctionality and suggests ways in which this new approach to understanding the neural basis of language can lead to meaningful, practical steps for improvements in aphasia therapy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These emotional and psychological consequences of aphasia have been found to negatively influence functional, neuro-physical and cognitive rehabilitation.
“These consequences have been found to negatively influence functional, neuro-physical, and cognitive rehabilitation (Cahana-Amitay & Albert, 2015;Code & Herrmann, 2003).”
From “Giving yourself some breathing room…”: an exploration of group meditation for people with aphasia (2021) · cites this paper as Cahana-Amitay & Albert, 2015
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 98 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- Cahana-Amitay, D., & Albert, M. L.
- Affiliations
- VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cahana-Amitay, Dalia
- Venue
- Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
- Published
- 2015-05-26
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 41-41
- ISSN
- 1528-4042 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-6293
- OpenAlex
- W370291843
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 98
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 0.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG014345)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Keywords
- aphasia recovery, aphasia rehabilitation, artificial neural networks, brain damage
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Aphasia, Humans, Neurosciences, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
