Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 480-493

  Boyd, Lara A ^a   Hayward, Kathryn S ^b,c   Ward, Nick S ^d   Stinear, Cathy M ^e   Rosso, Charlotte ^f,g   Fisher, Rebecca J ^h   Carter, Alexandre R ⁱ   Leff, Alex P ^j   Copland, David A ^k,l   Carey, Leeanne M ^c,m   Cohen, Leonardo G ⁿ   Basso, D Michele ^o   Maguire, Jane M ^p   Cramer, Steven C ^q,r  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^f SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^g PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^h UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^l UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^m LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

ⁿ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE   (United States)

^o OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^q UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^r UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Biomarker; clinical trial; cognition; function; human; language; motor; neuroimaging; somatosensory; stratification

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COGNITION; CONVALESCENCE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MOTOR SYSTEM; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM EFFICACY; SOMATOSENSORY SYSTEM; STROKE REHABILITATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; BRAIN; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY;

BRAIN; HUMANS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 85023772747     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1747493017714176     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Bernhardt J, Borschmann K, Boyd L. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke 2016; 11: 454–458.
2. Cramer SC, Koroshetz WJ, Finklestein SP. The case for modality-specific outcome measures in clinical trials of stroke recovery-promoting agents. Stroke 2007; 38: 1393–1395.
3. Krakauer JW, Marshall RS. The proportional recovery rule for stroke revisited. Ann Neurol 2015; 78: 845–847.
4. Winters C, Heymans MW, van Wegen EE, Kwakkel G. How to design clinical rehabilitation trials for the upper paretic limb early post stroke? Trials 2016; 17: 468.
5. Milot MH, Cramer SC. Biomarkers of recovery after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol 2008; 21: 654–659.
6. Ward NS. Restoring brain function after stroke – bridging the gap between animals and humans. Nat Rev Neurol 2017; 13: 244–255.
7. Cramer SC. Stratifying patients with stroke in trials that target brain repair. Stroke 2010; 41(10 Suppl): S114–S116.
8. Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the Stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke 2017 (in press). DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711816
9. Kim EJ, Park CH, Chang WH. The brain-derived neurotrophic factor Val66Met polymorphism and degeneration of the corticospinal tract after stroke: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Eur J Neurol 2016; 23: 76–84.
10. Whiteley W, Wardlaw J, Dennis M. The use of blood biomarkers to predict poor outcome after acute transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke. Stroke 2012; 43: 86–91.
11. Lindgren A, Maguire J. Stroke recovery genetics. Stroke 2016; 47: 2427–2434.
12. Farr TD, Wegener S. Use of magnetic resonance imaging to predict outcome after stroke: a review of experimental and clinical evidence. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2010; 30: 703–717.
13. Smith MC, Byblow WD, Barber PA, Stinear CM. Proportional recovery from lower limb motor impairment after stroke. Stroke 2017; 48: 1400–1403.
14. Winters C, van Wegen E, Daffershofer A, Kwakkel G. Generalizability of the maximum proportional recovery rule to visuospatial neglect early poststroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2017; 31: 334–342.
15. Lazar RM, Minzer B, Antoniello D, Festa JR, Krakauer JW, Marshall RS. Improvement in aphasia scores after stroke is well predicted by initial severity. Stroke 2010; 41: 1485–1488.
16. Rosso C, Samson Y. The ischemic penumbra: the location rather than the volume of recovery determines outcome. Curr Opin Neurol 2014; 27: 35–41.
17. Helenius J, Henninger N. Leukoaraiosis burden significantly modulates the association between infarct volume and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale in ischemic stroke. Stroke 2015; 46: 1857–1863.
18. Kasner SE. Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 603–612.
19. Henninger N, Lin E, Haussen DC. Leukoaraiosis and sex predict the hyperacute ischemic core volume. Stroke 2012; 44: 61–67.
20. Bigourdan A, Munsch F, Coupe P. Early fiber number ratio is a surrogate of corticospinal tract integrity and predicts motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 2016; 47: 1053–1059.
21. Wen H, Alshikho MJ, Wang Y. Correlation of Fractional anisotropy with motor recovery in patients with stroke after postacute rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2016; 97: 1487–1495.
22. Doughty C, Wang J, Feng W, Hackney D, Pani E, Schlaug G. Detection and predictive value of fractional anisotropy changes of the corticospinal tract in the acute phase of a stroke. Stroke 2016; 47: 1520–1526.
23. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Smale PR, Coxon JP, Fleming MK, Byblow WD. Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity. Brain 2007; 130(Pt 1): 170–180.
24. Feng W, Wang J, Chhatbar PY. Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol 2015; 78: 860–870.
25. Riley JD, Le V, Der-Yeghiaian L. Anatomy of stroke injury predicts gains from therapy. Stroke 2011; 42: 421–426.
26. Nouri S, Cramer SC. Anatomy and physiology predict response to motor cortex stimulation after stroke. Neurology 2011; 77: 1076–1083.
27. Burke Quinlan E, Dodakian L, See J. Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann Neurol 2015; 77: 132–145.
28. Borich MR, Mang C, Boyd LA. Both projection and commissural pathways are disrupted in individuals with chronic stroke: investigating microstructural white matter correlates of motor recovery. BMC Neurol 2012; 13: 107.
29. Mang CS, Borich MR, Brodie SM. Diffusion imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation assessment of transcallosal pathways in chronic stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 10: 1951–1971.
30. Borich MR, Neva JL, Boyd LA. Evaluation of differences in brain neurophysiology and morphometry associated with hand function in individuals with chronic stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2015; 33: 31–42.
31. Buch ER, Modir Shanechi A, Fourkas AD, Weber C, Birbaumer N, Cohen LG. Parietofrontal integrity determines neural modulation associated with grasping imagery after stroke. Brain 2012; 135: 596–614.
32. Censor N, Buch ER, Nader K, Cohen LG. Altered human memory modification in the presence of normal consolidation. Cereb Cortex 2016; 26: 3928–3927.
33. Mah YH, Husain M, Rees G, Nachev P. Human brain lesion-deficit inference remapped. Brain 2014; 137(Pt 9): 2522–2531.
34. Rondina JM, Park CH and Ward NS. Brain regions important for recovery after severe post-stroke upper limb paresis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2017 (in press)
35. Rondina JM, Filippone M, Girolami M, Ward NS. Decoding post-stroke motor function from structural brain imaging. Neuroimage Clin 2016; 12: 372–380.
36. Park CH, Kou N and Ward NS. The contribution of lesion location to upper limb deficit after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2016; 87: 1283–1286
37. Talelli P, Greenwood RJ, Rothwell JC. Arm function after stroke: neurophysiological correlates and recovery mechanisms assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117: 1641–1659.
38. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain 2012; 135: 2527–2535.
39. Heald A, Bates D, Cartlidge NE, French JM, Miller S. Longitudinal study of central motor conduction time following stroke. 2. Central motor conduction measured within 72 h after stroke as a predictor of functional outcome at 12 months. Brain 1993; 116: 1371–1385.
40. Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe MA, Ackerley SJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol 2015; 78: 8488–59.
41. Chang MC, Do KH, Chun MH. Prediction of lower limb motor outcomes based on transcranial magnetic stimulation findings in patients with an infarct of the anterior cerebral artery. Somatosens Motor Res 2015; 32: 249–253.
42. Piron L, Piccione F, Tonin P, Dam M. Clinical correlation between motor evoked potentials and gait recovery in poststroke patients. Arch PhysMed Rehab 2005; 86: 1874–1878.
43. Steube D, Wietholter S, Correll C. Prognostic value of lower limb motor evoked potentials for motor impairment and disability after 8 weeks of stroke rehabilitation – a prospective investigation of 100 patients. Electromyograph Clin Neurophysiol 2001; 41: 463–469.
44. Hayward KS, Schmidt J, Lohse KR. Are we armed with the right data? Pooled individual data review of biomarkers in people with severe upper limb impairment after stroke. Neuroimage Clin 2017; 13: 310–319.
45. Koski L, Mernar TJ, Dobkin BH. Immediate and long-term changes in corticomotor output in response to rehabilitation: correlation with functional improvements in chronic stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2004; 18: 230–249.
46. Lai CJ, Wang CP, Tsai PY. Corticospinal integrity and motor impairment predict outcomes after excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2015; 96: 69–75.
47. Carter AR, Astafiev SV, Lang CE. Resting interhemispheric functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity predicts performance after stroke. Ann Neurol 2010; 67: 365–375.
48. Baldassarre A, Ramsey L, Rengachary J. Dissociated functional connectivity profiles for motor and attention deficits in acute right-hemisphere stroke. Brain 2016; 139: 2024–2038.
49. Park CH, Chang WH, Ohn SH. Longitudinal changes of resting-state functional connectivity during motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 2011; 42: 1357–1362.
50. Fan YT, Wu CY, Liu HL. Neuroplastic changes in resting-state functional connectivity after stroke rehabilitation. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 546.
51. Siegel JS, Ramsey LE, Snyder AZ. Disruptions of network connectivity predict impairment in multiple behavioral domains after stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016; 113: E4367–E4376.
52. Feydy A, Carlier R, Roby-Brami A. Longitudinal study of motor recovery after stroke: recruitment and focusing of brain activation. Stroke 2002; 33: 1610–1617.
53. Schaechter JD, Kraft E, Hilliard TS. Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2002; 16: 326–338.
54. Calautti C, Baron JC. Functional neuroimaging studies of motor recovery after stroke in adults: a review. Stroke 2003; 34: 1553–1566.
55. Michielsen ME, Selles RW, van der Geest JN. Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients: a phase II randomized controlled trial. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2011; 25: 2230–2233.
56. Schaechter JD, Kraft E, Hilliard TS. Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2002; 16: 326–338.
57. Milot MH, Spencer SJ, Chan V. Corticospinal excitability as a predictor of functional gains at the affected upper limb following robotic training in chronic stroke survivors. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2014; 28: 819–827.
58. Dong Y, Dobkin BH, Cen SY, Wu AD, Winstein CJ. Motor cortex activation during treatment may predict therapeutic gains in paretic hand function after stroke. Stroke 2006; 37: 1552–1555.
59. Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR, Cramer SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain 2008; 131: 425–537.
60. Burke E, Dobkin BH, Noser EA, Enney LA, Cramer SC. Predictors and biomarkers of treatment gains in a clinical stroke trial targeting the lower extremity. Stroke 2014; 45: 2379–2384.
61. Cramer SC, Parrish TB, Levy RM. Predicting functional gains in a stroke trial. Stroke 2007; 38: 2108–2114.
62. Ward NS. Using oscillations to understand recovery after stroke. Brain 2015; 138: 2811–2813.
63. Rabiller G, He JW, Nishijima Y, Wong A, Liu J. Perturbation of brain oscillations after ischemic stroke: a potential biomarker for post-stroke function and therapy. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16: 25605–25640.
64. Paggiaro A, Birbaumer N, Cavinato M. Magnetoencephalography in stroke recovery and rehabilitation. Front Neurol 2016; 7: 35.
65. Laaksonen K, Helle L, Parkkonen L. Alterations in spontaneous brain oscillations during stroke recovery. PloS One 2013; 8: e61146.
66. Laaksonen K, Kirveskari E, Makela JP. Effect of afferent input on motor cortex excitability during stroke recovery. Clin Neurophysiol 2012; 123: 2429–2436.
67. Roiha K, Kirveskari E, Kaste M. Reorganization of the primary somatosensory cortex during stroke recovery. Clin Neurophysiol 2011; 122: 339–345.
68. Hall SD, Yamawaki N, Fisher AE, Clauss RP, Woodhall GL, Stanford IM. GABA(A) alpha-1 subunit mediated desynchronization of elevated low frequency oscillations alleviates specific dysfunction in stroke – a case report. Clin Neurophysiol 2010; 121: 5495–55.
69. Wu J, Quinlan EB, Dodakian L. Connectivity measures are robust biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity after stroke. Brain 2015; 138: 2359–2369.
70. Kim B, Winstein C. Can neurological biomarkers of brain impairment be used to predict poststroke motor recovery? A systematic review. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2017; 31: 3–24.
71. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain 2012; 135: 2527–2535.
72. Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, Barber PA, Smith MC. Predicting recovery potential for individual stroke patients increases rehabilitation efficiency. Stroke 2017; 48: 1011–1019.
73. Stoykov ME, Stinear JW. Active-passive bilateral therapy as a priming mechanism for individuals in the subacute phase of post-stroke recovery: a feasibility study. Am J Phys Med Rehab 2010; 89: 873–878.
74. Yamada K, Mori S, Nakamura H. Fiber-tracking method reveals sensorimotor pathway involvement in stroke patients. Stroke 2003; 34: E159–E162.
75. Schaechter JD, Moore CI, Connell BD, Rosen BR, Dijkhuizen RM. Structural and functional plasticity in the somatosensory cortex of chronic stroke patients. Brain 2006; 129: 2722–2733.
76. Brodie SM, Borich MR, Boyd LA. Impact of 5-Hz rTMS over the primary sensory cortex is related to white matter volume in individuals with chronic stroke. Eur J Neurosci 2014; 40: 3405–3412.
77. Manganotti P, Storti SF, Formaggio E. Effect of median-nerve electrical stimulation on BOLD activity in acute ischemic stroke patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2012; 123: 142–153.
78. Tecchio F, Zappasodi F, Tombini M. Brain plasticity in recovery from stroke: an MEG assessment. Neuroimage 2006; 32: 1326–1334.
79. Huang M, Davis LE, Aine C. MEG response to median nerve stimulation correlates with recovery of sensory and motor function after stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115: 820–833.
80. Carey LM, Abbott DF, Harvey MR, Puce A, Seitz RJ, Donnan GA. Relationship between touch impairment and brain activation after lesions of subcortical and cortical somatosensory regions. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2011; 25: 443–457.
81. Wikstrom H, Roine RO, Aronen HJ. Specific changes in somatosensory evoked magnetic fields during recovery from sensorimotor stroke. Ann Neurol 2000; 47: 353–360.
82. Bannister LC, Crewther SG, Gavrilescu M, Carey LM. Improvement in Touch sensation after stroke is associated with resting functional connectivity changes. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 165.
83. Borstad A, Schmalbrock P, Choi S, Nichols-Larsen DS. Neural correlates supporting sensory discrimination after left hemisphere stroke. Brain Res 2012; 1460: 78–87.
84. Meyer S, Kessner SS, Cheng B. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping of stroke lesions underlying somatosensory deficits. Neuroimage Clin 2016; 10: 257–266.
85. Borstad AL, Choi S, Schmalbrock P, Nichols-Larsen DS. Frontoparietal white matter integrity predicts haptic performance in chronic stroke. Neuroimage Clin 2016; 10: 129–139.
86. Jang SH, Lee MY. Correlation between somatosensory function and cortical activation induced by touch stimulation in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Int J Neurosci 2013; 123: 248–252.
87. Tecchio F, Zappasodi F, Tombini M, Caulo M, Vernieri F, Rossini PM. Interhemispheric asymmetry of primary hand representation and recovery after stroke: a MEG study. Neuroimage 2007; 36: 1057–1064.
88. Carey LM, Abbott DF, Lamp G, Puce A, Seitz RJ, Donnan GA. Same intervention-different reorganization: the impact of lesion location on training-facilitated somatosensory recovery after stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2016; 30: 988–1000.
89. Dechaumont-Palacin S, Marque P, De Boissezon X. Neural correlates of proprioceptive integration in the contralesional hemisphere of very impaired patients shortly after a subcortical stroke: an FMRI study. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2008; 22: 154–165.
90. Borstad AL, Bird T, Choi S, Goodman L, Schmalbrock P, Nichols-Larsen DS. Sensorimotor training and neural reorganization after stroke: a case series. J Neurol Phys Ther 2013; 37: 27–36.
91. Blennerhassett JM, Matyas TA, Carey LM. Impaired discrimination of surface friction contributes to pinch grip deficit after stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2007; 21: 263–272.
92. Kong K-H, Chua KS, Lee J. Recovery of upper limb dexterity in patients more than 1 year after stroke: frequency, clinical correlates and predictors. Neurorehabilitation 2011; 28: 105–111.
93. Borstad AL, Nichols-Larsen DS. Assessing and treating higher level somatosensory impairments post stroke. Topics Stroke Rehab 2014; 21: 290–295.
94. Butler RA, Lambon Ralph MA, Woollams AM. Capturing multidimensionality in stroke aphasia: mapping principal behavioural components to neural structures. Brain 2014; 137: 3248–3266.
95. Werring DJ, Frazer DW, Coward LJ. Cognitive dysfunction in patients with cerebral microbleeds on T2*-weighted gradient-echo MRI. Brain 2004; 127: 2265–2275.
96. O'Sullivan M, Morris RG, Huckstep B, Jones DK, Williams SC, Markus HS. Diffusion tensor MRI correlates with executive dysfunction in patients with ischaemic leukoaraiosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2004; 75: 441–447.
97. Senda J, Ito K, Kotake T. Association of leukoaraiosis with convalescent rehabilitation outcome in patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke 2016; 47: 160–166.
98. Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature 2013; 501: 97–101.
99. Dubovik S, Ptak R, Aboulafia T. EEG alpha band synchrony predicts cognitive and motor performance in patients with ischemic stroke. Behav Neurol 2013; 26: 187–189.
100. Geranmayeh F, Brownsett SL, Wise RJ. Task-induced brain activity in aphasic stroke patients: what is driving recovery? Brain 2014; 137: 2632–2648.
101. Brownsett SLE, Warren JE, Geranmayeh F, Woodhead Z, Leech R, Wise RJS. Cognitive control and its impact on recovery from aphasic stroke. Brain 2014; 137: 242–254.
102. Glass BD, Maddox WT, Love BC. Real-time strategy game training: emergence of a cognitive flexibility trait. PloS One 2013; 8: e70350.
103. Raichle ME. The brain's default mode network. Ann Rev Neurosci 2015; 38: 433–447.
104. Tuladhar AM, Snaphaan L, Shumskaya E. Default mode network connectivity in stroke patients. PloS One 2013; 8: e66556.
105. Ding X, Li CY, Wang QS. Patterns in default-mode network connectivity for determining outcomes in cognitive function in acute stroke patients. Neuroscience 2014; 277: 637–646.
106. Park JY, Kim YH, Chang WH. Significance of longitudinal changes in the default-mode network for cognitive recovery after stroke. Eur J Neurosci 2014; 40: 2715–2722.
107. Dacosta-Aguayo R, Grana M, Iturria-Medina Y. Impairment of functional integration of the default mode network correlates with cognitive outcome at three months after stroke. Hum Brain Mapp 2015; 36: 577–590.
108. Corbetta M, Shulman GL. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002; 3: 201–215.
109. He BJ, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Epstein A, Shulman GL, Corbetta M. Breakdown of functional connectivity in frontoparietal networks underlies behavioral deficits in spatial neglect. Neuron 2007; 53: 905–918.
110. Baldassarre A, Ramsey L, Hacker CL. Large-scale changes in network interactions as a physiological signature of spatial neglect. Brain 2014; 137: 3267–3283.
111. Ramsey LE, Siegel JS. Normalization of network connectivity in hemispatial neglect recovery. Ann Neurol 2016; 80: 127–141.
112. Karnath HO, Rennig J, Johannsen L, Rorden C. The anatomy underlying acute versus chronic spatial neglect: a longitudinal study. Brain 2011; 134: 903–912.
113. Thiebaut de Schotten M, Tomaiuolo F, Aiello M. Damage to white matter pathways in subacute and chronic spatial neglect: a group study and 2 single-case studies with complete virtual “in vivo” tractography dissection. Cereb Cortex 2014; 24: 691–706.
114. Carter AR, McAvoy MP, Siegel JS. Differential white matter involvement associated with distinct visuospatial deficits after right hemisphere stroke. Cortex 2017; 88: 81–97.
115. Plowman E, Hentz B, Ellis Jr. C. Post-stroke aphasia prognosis: a review of patient-related and stroke-related factors. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18: 689–694.
116. Hillis AE, Wityk RJ, Tuffiash E. Hypoperfusion of Wernicke's area predicts severity of semantic deficit in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2001; 50: 561–566.
117. Hillis AE, Barker PB, Beauchamp NJ, Gordon B, Wityk RJ. MR perfusion imaging reveals regions of hypoperfusion associated with aphasia and neglect. Neurology 2000; 55: 782–788.
118. Hillis AE, Heidler J. Mechanisms of early aphasia recovery. Aphasiology 2002; 16: 885–895.
119. Hillis AE, Kleinman JT, Newhart M. Restoring cerebral blood flow reveals neural regions critical for naming. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 8069–8073.
120. Croquelois A, Wintermark M, Reichhart M, Meuli R, Bogousslavsky J. Aphasia in hyperacute stroke: language follows brain penumbra dynamics. Ann Neurol 2003; 54: 321–329.
121. Reineck LA, Agarwal S, Hillis AE. “Diffusion-clinical mismatch” is associated with potential for early recovery of aphasia. Neurology 2005; 64: 828–833.
122. Fridriksson J. Preservation and modulation of specific left hemisphere regions is vital for treated recovery from anomia in stroke. J Neurosci 2010; 30: 11558–11564.
123. Kummerer D, Hartwigsen G, Kellmeyer P. Damage to ventral and dorsal language pathways in acute aphasia. Brain 2013; 136: 619–629.
124. Yang H, Bai L, Zhou Y. Increased inter-hemispheric resting-state functional connectivity in acute lacunar stroke patients with aphasia. Exp Brain Res 2017; 235: 941–948.
125. Kreisler A, Godefroy O, Delmaire C. The anatomy of aphasia revisited. Neurology 2000; 54: 1117–11123.
126. Forkel SJ, Thiebaut de Schotten M, Dell'Acqua F. Anatomical predictors of aphasia recovery: a tractography study of bilateral perisylvian language networks. Brain 2014; 137: 2027–2039.
127. Geranmayeh F, Leech R and Wise RJ. Network dysfunction predicts speech production after left hemisphere stroke. Neurology 2016; 86: 1296–1305
128. Saur D, Ronneberger O, Kummerer D, Mader I, Weiller C, Kloppel S. Early functional magnetic resonance imaging activations predict language outcome after stroke. Brain 2010; 133: 1252–1264.
129. Leff AP, Schofield TM, Crinion JT. The left superior temporal gyrus is a shared substrate for auditory short-term memory and speech comprehension: evidence from 210 patients with stroke. Brain 2009; 132: 3401–3410.
130. Butler RA, Lambon Ralph MA, Woollams AM. Capturing multidimensionality in stroke aphasia: mapping principal behavioural components to neural structures. Brain 2014; 137: 3248–3266.
131. Turken AU, Dronkers NF. The neural architecture of the language comprehension network: converging evidence from lesion and connectivity analyses. Front Syst Neurosci 2011; 5: 1.
132. Marchina S, Zhu LL, Norton A, Zipse L, Wan CY, Schlaug G. Impairment of speech production predicted by lesion load of the left arcuate fasciculus. Stroke 2011; 42: 2251–2256.
133. Wang J, Marchina S, Norton AC, Wan CY, Schlaug G. Predicting speech fluency and naming abilities in aphasic patients. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 831.
134. Price CJ, Seghier ML, Leff AP. Predicting language outcome and recovery after stroke: the PLORAS system. Nat Rev Neurol 2010; 6: 202–210.
135. Hope TM, Seghier ML, Leff AP, Price CJ. Predicting outcome and recovery after stroke with lesions extracted from MRI images. Neuroimage Clin 2013; 2: 424–433.
136. Meinzer M, Mohammadi S, Kugel H. Integrity of the hippocampus and surrounding white matter is correlated with language training success in aphasia. Neuroimage 2010; 53: 283–290.
137. Bonilha L, Gleichgerrcht E, Nesland T, Rorden C, Fridriksson J. Success of anomia treatment in aphasia is associated with preserved architecture of global and left temporal lobe structural networks. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2016; 30: 266–279.
138. van Hees S, McMahon K, Angwin A, de Zubicaray G, Read S, Copland DA. A functional MRI study of the relationship between naming treatment outcomes and resting state functional connectivity in post-stroke aphasia. Hum Brain Mapp 2014; 35: 3919–3931.
139. Schlaug G, Marchina S, Norton A. Evidence for plasticity in white-matter tracts of patients with chronic Broca's aphasia undergoing intense intonation-based speech therapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1169: 385–394.
140. Fridriksson J, Richardson JD, Fillmore P, Cai B. Left hemisphere plasticity and aphasia recovery. Neuroimage 2012; 60: 854–863.
141. Ulm L, Copland D and Meinzer M. A new era of systems neuroscience in aphasia? Aphasiology 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1227425 (accessed 24 May 2017)
142. Hardwick RM, Rajan VA, Bastian AJ, Krakauer JW, Celnik PA. Motor Learning in stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2017; 31: 178–189.
143. Menon BK, Campbell BC, Levi C, Goyal M. Role of imaging in current acute ischemic stroke workflow for endovascular therapy. Stroke 2015; 46: 1453–1461.
144. Levy RM, Harvey RL, Kissela BM. Epidural electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation: results of the prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blinded everest trial. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2016; 30: 107–119.