Norise Catherine, Hamilton Roy H
Laboratory for Cognition and Neural Stimulation, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Jan 23;10:675. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00675. eCollection 2016.
Numerous studies over the span of more than a decade have shown that non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, namely transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can facilitate language recovery for patients who have suffered from aphasia due to stroke. While stroke is the most common etiology of aphasia, neurodegenerative causes of language impairment-collectively termed primary progressive aphasia (PPA)-are increasingly being recognized as important clinical phenotypes in dementia. Very limited data now suggest that (NIBS) may have some benefit in treating PPAs. However, before applying the same approaches to patients with PPA as have previously been pursued in patients with post-stroke aphasia, it will be important for investigators to consider key similarities and differences between these aphasia etiologies that is likely to inform successful approaches to stimulation. While both post-stroke aphasia and the PPAs have clear overlaps in their clinical phenomenology, the mechanisms of injury and theorized neuroplastic changes associated with the two etiologies are notably different. Importantly, theories of plasticity in post-stroke aphasia are largely predicated on the notion that regions of the brain that had previously been uninvolved in language processing may take on new compensatory roles. PPAs, however, are characterized by slow distributed degeneration of cellular units within the language system; compensatory recruitment of brain regions to subserve language is not currently understood to be an important aspect of the condition. This review will survey differences in the mechanisms of language representation between the two etiologies of aphasia and evaluate properties that may define and limit the success of different neuromodulation approaches for these two disorders.
在过去十多年里,众多研究表明,非侵入性脑刺激(NIBS)技术,即经颅磁刺激(TMS)和经颅直流电刺激(tDCS),能够促进因中风而患失语症患者的语言恢复。虽然中风是失语症最常见的病因,但语言障碍的神经退行性病因——统称为原发性进行性失语(PPA)——越来越被认为是痴呆症中的重要临床表型。目前非常有限的数据表明,(NIBS)可能在治疗PPA方面有一些益处。然而,在将先前用于中风后失语症患者的相同方法应用于PPA患者之前,研究人员必须考虑这两种失语症病因之间的关键异同,这可能为成功的刺激方法提供依据。虽然中风后失语症和PPA在临床现象学上有明显重叠,但与这两种病因相关的损伤机制和理论上的神经可塑性变化却显著不同。重要的是,中风后失语症的可塑性理论很大程度上基于这样一种观念,即先前未参与语言处理的脑区可能会承担新的补偿作用。然而,PPA的特征是语言系统内细胞单位的缓慢弥漫性退化;目前尚不认为脑区的代偿性募集以服务语言是该病症的一个重要方面。本综述将探讨两种失语症病因在语言表征机制上的差异,并评估可能定义和限制这两种疾病不同神经调节方法成功的特性。