Using transcranial direct-current stimulation to treat stroke patients with aphasia
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose— Recent research suggests that increased left hemisphere cortical activity, primarily of the left frontal cortex, is associated with improved naming performance in stroke patients with aphasia. Our aim was to determine whether anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), a method thought to increase cortical excitability, would improve naming accuracy in stroke patients with aphasia when applied to the scalp overlying the left frontal cortex. Methods— Ten patients with chronic stroke-induced aphasia received 5 days of anodal tDCS (1 mA for 20 minutes) and 5 days of sham tDCS (for 20 minutes, order randomized) while performing a computerized anomia treatment. tDCS positioning was guided by a priori functional magnetic resonance imaging results for each individual during an overt naming task to ensure that the active electrode was placed over structurally intact cortex. Results— Results revealed significantly improved naming accuracy of treated items (F[1,9]=5.72, P <0.040) after anodal tDCS compared with sham tDCS. Patients who demonstrated the most improvement were those with perilesional areas closest to the stimulation site. Crucially, this treatment effect persisted at least 1 week after treatment. Conclusions— Our findings suggest that anodal tDCS over the left frontal cortex can lead to enhanced naming accuracy in stroke patients with aphasia and, if proved to be effective in larger studies, may provide a supplementary treatment approach for anomia.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
tDCS increases speech fluency in adults who stutter when applied during a fluency intervention.
“Recent studies have shown that tDCS increases speech fluency also in adults who stutter when applied during a fluency intervention [4, 11].”
From Investigation of the effect of delayed auditory feedback and transcranial direct current stimulation (DAF-tDCS) treatment for the enhancement of speech fluency in adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Methods describe tDCS applied during an anomia treatment to adults with chronic stroke-induced aphasia, and the Results report improved naming accuracy. The paper does not study adults who stutter or measure speech fluency during a fluency intervention, so those parts of the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe tDCS setup used (1 mA, 5x7 cm electrodes, 20 minutes) was shown to be efficient for enhancing speech fluency in other tDCS studies.
“This setup was shown to be efficient for enhancing speech fluency in other tDCS studies [4, 30].”
From Investigation of the effect of delayed auditory feedback and transcranial direct current stimulation (DAF-tDCS) treatment for the enhancement of speech fluency in adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Methods (tDCS; page unavailable) describe 1 mA stimulation for 20 minutes, but with 5 × 5 cm electrodes, not 5 × 7 cm. The Discussion reports improved naming accuracy in patients with chronic stroke-induced aphasia; it does not establish improved speech fluency. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFive or six days of tDCS stimulation would be effective for a tDCS intervention.
“The number of intervention sessions were considered based on findings in earlier studies which had shown that 5 or 6 days of stimulation would be effective for a tDCS intervention [4, 6, 8, 26-28].”
From Investigation of the effect of delayed auditory feedback and transcranial direct current stimulation (DAF-tDCS) treatment for the enhancement of speech fluency in adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Study Design reports five consecutive days of stimulation per treatment phase, and the Discussion describes a beneficial effect after five anodal tDCS sessions combined with anomia treatment. This paper does not establish effectiveness after six days or for tDCS interventions generally; its finding concerns naming treatment in patients with chronic stroke-induced aphasia. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAdults who stutter may benefit from non-invasive brain stimulation as an adjunctive intervention for enhancing speech fluency treatment results.
“adults who stutter may benefit from non-invasive brain stimulation as an adjunctive intervention for enhancing the results of speech fluency treatment [4].”
From Investigation of the effect of delayed auditory feedback and transcranial direct current stimulation (DAF-tDCS) treatment for the enhancement of speech fluency in adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Discussion (page not specified) says tDCS combined with anomia treatment improved naming accuracy in patients with stroke-induced aphasia and could supplement behavioral aphasia treatment. It does not study adults who stutter or show improved speech fluency treatment results in that population. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe direction of these results is consistent with previous studies in stuttering and with tDCS studies on other speech-related symptoms.
“The direction of these results is consistent with previous studies in stuttering [4], as well as the tDCS studies in which the impact of stimulation on other speech-related symptoms was explored [10, 34, 35].”
A sample size of 25 participants per group (50 total) was estimated based on the previous study by Chesters and colleagues and using G*Power, to detect a significant difference for the time × group interaction in the primary statistical test with an effect size of f=0.17.
“A sample size of 25 participants per group (50 participants in total) was estimated based on the previous study by Chesters and colleagues [4], and using G*Power software [33]. The determination of sample size was based on two criteria which were to detect a significant difference for the relevant time × group interaction in the primary statistical test and to have an effect size of f= 0.17.”
From Investigation of the effect of delayed auditory feedback and transcranial direct current stimulation (DAF-tDCS) treatment for the enhancement of speech fluency in adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Materials & Methods > Statistics passage describes Baker et al.'s ANOVA and use of ezANOVA, but no sample-size calculation using G*Power. The Results > Treatment Generalization passage reports a generalized eta-squared effect size of 0.167, not the claimed planning effect size of f=0.17. Searches for Chesters, G*Power, and a 25-per-group calculation found no supporting passage; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.8.4.434 · Cited by 1,622 · see citing works
Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales.
Dl, W., & Cm, B. (1988) · PubMed · Cited by 1,619 · see citing works
Western Aphasia Battery--Revised
Kertesz, A. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15168-000 · Cited by 1,367 · see citing works
Burchfield, R. (1985) · Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.1177/007542428501800107 · Cited by 1,249 · see citing works
Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals
Iyer, M. B., Mattu, U., Grafman, J. H., Lomarev, M. P., Sato, S., & Wassermann, E. M. (2005) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000152986.07469.e9 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales.
Wong, D. L., & Baker, C. M. (1988) · PubMed · Cited by 651 · see citing works
Re-examining the brain regions crucial for orchestrating speech articulation
Hillis, A. E., Work, M., Barker, P. B., Jacobs, M. A., Breese, E., & Maurer, K. (2004) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awh172 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Improves Language Learning
Flöel, A., Rösser, N., Michka, O., Knecht, S., & Breitenstein, C. (2008) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20098 · Cited by 443 · see citing works
Improved naming after transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia
Monti, A., Cogiamanian, F. M., Marceglia, S. R. F., Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Mrakic‐Sposta, S., Vergari, M., Zago, S., & Priori, A. (2007) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.135277 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Sparing, R., Dafotakis, M., Meister, I. G., Thirugnanasambandam, N., & Fink, G. R. (2007) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.009 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Hesse, S., Werner, C., Schonhardt, E. M., Bardeleben, A., Jenrich, W., & Kirker, S. G. B. (2007) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-2007-00347 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Functional MRI of Language in Aphasia: A Review of the Literature and the Methodological Challenges
Crosson, B., McGregor, K., Gopinath, K., Conway, T. W., Benjamin, M., Chang, Y., MOORE, A. B., Raymer, A. M., Briggs, R. W., Sherod, M., et al. (2007) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-007-9024-z · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Crinion, J., & Price, C. J. (2005) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awh659 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Chapter 26 Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
Paulus, W. (2003) · Supplements to Clinical neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s1567-424x(09)70229-6 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Postman, W. A., Birn, R. M., Pursley, R. H., Butman, J. A., Solomon, J. M., Picchioni, D., McArdle, J., & Braun, A. R. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21261 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Right hemisphere activation in recovery from aphasia
Raboyeau, G., Boissezon, X. D., Marie, N., Balduyck, S., Puel, M., Bézy, C., Démonet, J., & Cardebat, D. (2008) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000287115.85956.87 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Skin lesions after treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
Palm, U., Keeser, D., Schiller, C., Fintescu, Z., Reisinger, E., Padberg, F., & Nitsche, M. A. (2008) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2008.04.003 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Recovery and treatment of aphasia after stroke: functional imaging studies
Crinion, J., & Leff, A. P. (2007) · Current Opinion in Neurology · doi:10.1097/wco.0b013e3282f1c6fa · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Activity in Preserved Left Hemisphere Regions Predicts Anomia Severity in Aphasia
Fridriksson, J., Bonilha, L., Baker, J. M., Moser, D., & Rorden, C. (2009) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp160 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Self-citationNeural correlates of phonological and semantic-based anomia treatment in aphasia
Fridriksson, J., Moser, D., Bonilha, L., Morrow-Odom, K. L., Shaw, H., Fridriksson, A., Baylis, G. C., & Rorden, C. (2007) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.017 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationRehabilitation of Aphasia: More Is Better
Bhogal, S. K., Teasell, R. W., Foley, N. C., & Speechley, M. R. (2003) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1310/rcm8-5tul-nc5d-bx58 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Treating Visual Speech Perception to Improve Speech Production in Nonfluent Aphasia
Fridriksson, J., Baker, J. M. C., Whiteside, J. D., Eoute, D., Moser, D., Vesselinov, R. M., & Rorden, C. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.532499 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Self-citationCortical mapping of naming errors in aphasia
Fridriksson, J., Baker, J. M. C., & Moser, D. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20683 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Self-citationBrain Stimulation Therapies for Clinicians
(2009) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000356992.17156.81 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Li, L. M., Uehara, K., & Hanakawa, T. (2015) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2015.00181 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
Richmond, L. L., Wolk, D., Chein, J., & Olson, I. R. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00657 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Hits and misses: leveraging tDCS to advance cognitive research
Berryhill, M. E. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00800 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Treatment of Primary Progressive Aphasia
Tippett, D. C., Hillis, A. E., & Tsapkini, K. (2015) · Current Treatment Options in Neurology · doi:10.1007/s11940-015-0362-5 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Bandeira, I. D., Guimarães, R. S. Q., Jagersbacher, J. G., Barretto, T. L., de Jesus-Silva, J. R., Santos, S. N., Argollo, N., & Lucena, R. (2016) · Journal of Child Neurology · doi:10.1177/0883073816630083 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Chesters, J., Möttönen, R., & Watkins, K. E. (2018) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awy011 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Chesters, J., Watkins, K. E., & Möttönen, R. (2017) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2016.10.003 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Stuttering severity modulates effects of non-invasive brain stimulation in adults who stutter
Garnett, E. O., Chow, H. M., Choo, A. L., & Chang, S.-E. (2019) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00411 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Moein, N., Mohamadi, R., Rostami, R., Nitsche, M., Zomorrodi, R., & Ostadi, A. (2022) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2022.105907 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Conversational Therapy in Aphasia: From Behavioral Intervention to Neuromodulation
Marangolo, P., & Pisano, F. (2020) · Seminars in Speech and Language · doi:10.1055/s-0039-3399500 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Baker, J. M., Rorden, C., & Fridriksson, J.
- Affiliations
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1229-1236
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- PMC
- PMC2876210
- OpenAlex
- W2155884442
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 39
- FWCI
- 26.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Stroke (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC008355, R01DC009571, DC-009571, DC008355)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS054266, NS054266)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Keywords
- transcranial direct current stimulation, post-stroke aphasia, anomia, anodal tDCS, left frontal cortex, naming accuracy, cortical excitability, chronic stroke, perilesional cortex, non-invasive brain stimulation
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anomia, Aphasia, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Remission Induction, Time Factors, Stroke
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
