Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Naming of Visual and Auditory Modality in Post-stroke Aphasia
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2019.05.002
- VernacularTitle:经颅直流电刺激对卒中后失语患者视听觉通道命名的效果
- Author:
Yuan-yuan TAO
1
;
Rong SUN
2
;
Jie LE
2
;
Hai-xia MI
2
;
Xiao-xia DU
1
;
Lu-ping SONG
1
Author Information
1. Capital Medical University School of Rehabilitation Medicine, Beijing 100068, China
2. Neurological Rehabilitation Department, Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
stroke;
aphasia;
transcranial direct current stimulation;
naming;
visual modality;
auditory modality
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2019;25(5):506-512
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the naming of visual and auditory modality in patients with post-stroke aphasia. Methods:From March to November, 2018, 32 patients with post-stroke aphasia were randomly divided into control group (n = 16) and treatment group (n = 16). The treatment group accepted anodal-tDCS (A-tDCS) over left-inferior frontal gyrus (L-IFG) concurrent with speech training, while the control group accepted sham-tDCS. Before and two weeks after treatment, they were assessed with Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), Picture Naming Test and Environmental Sound Naming Test. Results:One patient was lost in the control group. After treatment, Aphasia Quotient of WAB improved in both groups (t > 5.081, P < 0.001), but the difference before and after treatment was not significantly different between two groups (t = 1.550, P > 0.05); the Picture Naming Test score improved in both groups (Z > 2.650, P < 0.01), and the difference before and after treatment was more in the treatment group than in the control group (Z = -2.258, P < 0.05); the object naming score of WAB improved in the treatment group (Z = -3.239, P < 0.01), and the difference before and after treatment was more in the treatment group than in the control group (Z = -3.008, P < 0.01); the score of Environment Sound Naming Test improved in the treatment group (t = -4.745, P < 0.001), and the difference before and after treatment was more in the treatment group than in the control group (t = 2.224, P < 0.05). The scores of spontaneous naming, sentences complement and reaction naming of WAB improved in the treatment group (Z > 2.191, P < 0.05), while the score of spontaneous naming of WAB improved in the control group (Z = -2.376, P < 0.05), but the differences before and after treatment were not significantly different between two groups (Z < 1.568, P > 0.05). Conclusion:A-tDCS over L-IFG may improve the naming ability of visual and auditory modality, which may associate with semantic or phonetic processing.
