The right hemisphere supports but does not replace left hemisphere auditory function in patients with persisting aphasia

Brain

Volumn 136, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1901-1912

  Teki, Sundeep ^a,b   Barnes, Gareth R ^a   Penny, William D ^a   Iverson, Paul ^a   Woodhead, Zoe V J ^a   Griffiths, Timothy D ^a,c   Leff, Alexander P ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

aphasia; dynamic causal modelling; MEG; mismatch negativity; speech

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; APHASIA; ARTICLE; AUDITORY PROCESSING DISORDER; AUDITORY RESPONSE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; MISMATCH NEGATIVITY; NERVE CONDUCTION; PHONEME; PRIMARY AUDITORY CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STROKE PATIENT; SUPERIOR TEMPORAL GYRUS; TEMPORAL LOBE;

EID: 84878857995     PISSN: 00068950     EISSN: 14602156     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awt087     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aaltonen O, Tuomainen J, Laine M, Niemi P. Cortical differences in tonal versus vowel processing as revealed by an ERP component called mismatch negativity (MMN). Brain Lang 1993; 44: 139-52.
2. Alho K. Cerebral generators of mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic counterpart (MMNm) elicited by sound changes. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 38-51.
3. Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005; 26: 839-51.
4. Bakheit AM, Shaw S, Carrington S, Griffiths S. The rate and extent of improvement with therapy from the different types of aphasia in the first year after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 941-9.
5. Becker F, Reinvang I. Mismatch negativity elicited by tones and speech sounds: changed topographical distribution in aphasia. Brain Lang 2007; 100: 69-78.
6. Blumstein SE, Baker E, Goodglass H. Phonological factors in auditory comprehension in aphasia. Neuropsychologia 1977; 15: 19-30.
7. Brodersen KH, Schofield TM, Leff AP, Ong CS, Lomakina EI, Buhmann JM, et al. Generative embedding for model-based classification of fMRI data. PLoS Comput Biol 2011; 7: e1002079.
8. Crosson B, McGregor K, Gopinath KS, Conway TW, Benjamin M, Chang YL, et al. Functional MRI of language in aphasia: a review of the literature and the methodological challenges. Neuropsychol Rev 2007; 17: 157-77.
9. Csé pe V, Osman-Sá gi J, Molnár M, Gó sy M Impaired speech perception in aphasic patients: event-related potential and neuropsychological assessment. Neuropsychologia, 2001, 39,1194-208.
10. Deichmann R, Schwarzbauer C, Turner R. Optimization of the 3D MDEFT sequence for anatomical brain imaging: technical implications at 1.5 and 3 T. Neuroimage 2004; 21: 757-67.
11. Felleman DJ, Van Essen DC. Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 1991; 1: 1-47.
12. Friston KJ. A theory of cortical responses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005; 360: 815-36.
13. Friston KJ, Harrison L, Penny WD. Dynamic causal modeling. Neuroimage 2003; 19: 1273-302.
14. Friston KJ, Kiebel S. Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009; 364: 1211-21.
15. Garrido MI, Friston KJ, Kiebel SJ, Stephan KE, Baldeweg T, Kilner JM. The functional anatomy of the MMN: a DCM study of the roving paradigm. Neuroimage 2008; 42: 936-44.
16. Garrido MI, Kilner JM, Kiebel SJ, Stephan KE, Friston KJ. Dynamic causal modelling of evoked potentials: a reproducibility study. Neuroimage 2007; 36: 571-80.
17. Goldenberg G, Spatt J. Influence of size and site of cerebral lesions on spontaneous recovery of aphasia and on success of language therapy. Brain Lang 1994; 47: 684-98.
18. Griffiths TD, Warren JD. The planum temporale as a computational hub. Trends Neurosci 2002; 25: 348-53.
19. Haist F, Song AW, Wild K, Faber TL, Popp CA, Morris RD. Linking sight and sound: fMRI evidence of primary auditory cortex activation during visual word recognition. Brain Lang 2001; 76: 340-50.
20. Hamilton RH, Chrysikou EG, Coslett B. Mechanisms of aphasia recovery after stroke and the role of noninvasive brain stimulation. Brain Lang 2011; 118: 40-50.
21. Hickok G, Okada K, Barr W, Pa J, Rogalsky C, Donnelly K, et al. Bilateral capacity for speech sound processing in auditory comprehension: evidence from Wada procedures. Brain Lang 2008; 107: 179-84.
22. Hickok G, Poeppel D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat Rev Neurosci 2007; 8: 393-402.
23. Ilvonen T, Kujala T, Kozou H, Kiesilä inen A, Salonen O, Alku P, et al. The processing of speech and non-speech sounds in aphasic patients as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN). Neurosci Lett 2004; 366: 235-40.
24. Ilvonen TM, Kujala T, Kiesilä inen A, Salonen O, Kozou H, Pekkonen E, et al. Auditory discrimination after left-hemisphere stroke: a mismatch negativity follow-up study. Stroke 2003; 34: 1746-51.
25. Ilvonen TM, Kujala T, Tervaniemi M, Salonen O, Nä ä tä nen R, Pekkonen E. The processing of sound duration after left hemisphere stroke: event-related potential and behavioral evidence. Psychophysiology 2001; 38: 622-8.
26. Iverson P, Evans BG. Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems: perception of formant targets, formant movement, and duration. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122: 2842-54.
27. Jansen BH, Rit VG. Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns. Biol Cybern 1995; 73: 357-66.
28. Javitt DC, Steinschneider M, Schroeder CE, Arezzo JC. Role of cortical Nmethyl-D-aspartate receptors in auditory sensory memory and mismatch negativity generation: implications for schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93: 11962-7.
29. Kertesz A, Lau WK, Polk M. The structural determinants of recovery in Wernicke's aphasia. Brain Lang 1993; 44: 153-64.
30. Kiebel SJ, Daunizeau J, Phillips C, Friston KJ. Variational Bayesian inversion of the equivalent current dipole model in EEG/MEG. Neuroimage 2008a; 39: 728-41.
31. Kiebel SJ, Garrido MI, Friston KJ. Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses: the role of intrinsic connections. Neuroimage 2007; 36: 332-45.
32. Kiebel SJ, Garrido MI, Moran R, Chen CC, Friston KJ. Dynamic causal modeling for EEG and MEG. Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30: 1866-76.
33. Kiebel SJ, Garrido MI, Moran RJ, Friston KJ. Dynamic causal modelling for EEG and MEG. Cogn Neurodyn 2008b; 2: 12136.
34. Klatt DH, Klatt LC. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 87: 820-57.
35. Kraus N, McGee T, Sharma A, Carrell T, Nicol T. Mismatch negativity event-related potential elicited by speech stimuli. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 158-64.
36. Leff AP, Iverson P, Schofield TM, Kilner JM, Crinion JT, Friston KJ, et al. Vowel-specific mismatch responses in the anterior superior temporal gyrus: an fMRI study. Cortex 2009; 45: 517-26.
37. Leff AP, Schofield TM, Stephan KE, Crinion JT, Friston KJ, Price CJ. The cortical dynamics of intelligible speech. J Neurosci 2008; 28: 13209-15.
38. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49 (Suppl. 2): 467.
39. Litvak V, Mattout J, Kiebel S, Phillips C, Henson R, Kilner J, et al. EEG and MEG data analysis in SPM8. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011; 2011: 852961.
40. Luo H, Poeppel D. Phase patterns of neural responses reliably discriminate speech in human auditory cortex. Neuron 2007; 54: 1001-10.
41. Moore BC, Glasberg BR. Suggested formulae for calculating auditoryfilter bandwidths and excitation patterns. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74: 750-3.
42. Mumford D. On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II. The role of cortico-cortical loops. Biol Cybern 1992; 66: 241-51.
43. Nä ä tä nen R The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 2001, 38, 1-21.
44. Nä ä tä nen R, Paavilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clin Neurophysiol, 2007,118,2544-90.
45. Opitz B, Mecklinger A, Friederici AD, Von Cramon DY. The functional neuroanatomy of novelty processing: integrating ERP and fMRI results. Cereb Cortex 1999; 9: 379-91.
46. Opitz B, Rinne T, Mecklinger A, Von Cramon DY, Schrö ger E. Differential contribution of frontal and temporal cortices to auditory change detection: fMRI and ERP results. Neuroimage 2002; 15: 167-74.
47. Pedersen PM, Vinter K, Olsen TS. Aphasia after stroke: type, severity and prognosis. The Copenhagen aphasia study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004; 17: 35-43.
48. Penny WD, Stephan KE, Daunizeau J, Rosa MJ, Friston KJ, Schofield TM, et al. Comparing families of dynamic causal models. PLoS Comput Biol 2010; 6: e1000709.
49. Poeppel D. The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as 'asymmetric sampling in time'. Speech Commun 2003; 41: 245-55.
50. Postman-Caucheteux WA, Birn R, Pursley R, Butman J, Solomon J, Picchioni D, et al. Single-trial fMRI shows contralesional activity linked to overt naming errors in chronic aphasic patients. J Cogn Neurosci 2010; 22: 1299-318.
51. Price CJ, Seghier ML, Leff AP. Predicting language outcome and recovery after stroke: the PLORAS system. Nat Rev Neurol 2010; 6: 202-10.
52. Rao RP, Ballard DH. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nat Neurosci 1999; 2: 79-87.
53. Rauschecker JP, Scott SK. Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nat Neurosci 2009; 12: 718-24.
54. Richardson FM, Seghier ML, Leff AP, Thomas MS, Price CJ. Multiple routes from occipital to temporal cortices during reading. J Neurosci 2011; 31: 8239-47.
55. Saur D, Lange R, Baumgaertner A, Schraknepper V, Willmes K, Rijntjes M, et al. Dynamics of language reorganization after stroke. Brain 2006; 129: 1371-84.
56. Schofield TM, Iverson P, Kiebel SJ, Stephan KE, Kilner JM, Friston KJ, et al. Changing meaning causes coupling changes within higher levels of the cortical hierarchy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 11765-70.
57. Schofield TM, Penny WD, Stephan KE, Crinion JT, Thompson AJ, Price CJ, et al. Changes in auditory feedback connections determine the severity of speech processing deficits after stroke. J Neurosci 2012; 32: 4260-70.
58. Scott SK, Wise RJ. The functional neuroanatomy of prelexical processing in speech perception. Cognition 2004; 92: 13-45.
59. Seghier ML, Ramlackhansingh A, Crinion J, Leff AP, Price CJ. Lesion identification using unified segmentation-normalisation models and fuzzy clustering. Neuroimage 2008; 41: 1253-66.
60. Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, Nicol T. Acoustic versus phonetic representation of speech as reflected by the mismatch negativity event-related potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993; 88: 64-71.
61. Stephan KE, Penny WD, Daunizeau J, Moran RJ, Friston KJ. Bayesian model selection for group studies. Neuroimage 2009; 46: 1004-17.
62. Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. The Comprehensive Aphasia Test. Hove: Psychology Press, 2005.
63. Ulanovsky N, Las L, Nelken I. Processing of low-probability sounds by cortical neurons. Nat Neurosci 2003; 6: 391-8.
64. Wertz RT, Auther LL, Burch-Sims GP, Abou-Khalil R, Kirshner HS, Duncan GW. A comparison of the mismatch negativity (MMN) event-related potential to tone and speech stimuli in normal and aphasic adults. Aphasiology 1998; 12: 499-507.
65. Zatorre RJ, Belin P, Penhune VB. Structure and function of auditory cortex: music and speech. Trends Cogn Sci 2002; 6: 37-46.