Felix R. Dreyer

A functional role for modality-specific perceptual systems in conceptual representations

Theories of embodied cognition suggest that conceptual processing relies on the same neural resources that are utilized for perception and action. Evidence for these perceptual simulations comes from neuroimaging and behavioural research, such as demonstrations of somatotopic motor cortex activations following the presentation of action-related words, or facilitation of grasp responses following presentation of object names. However, the interpretation of such effects has been called into question by suggestions that neural activation in modality-specific sensorimotor regions may be epiphenomenal, and merely the result of spreading activations from “disembodied”, abstracted, symbolic representations. Here, we present two studies that focus on the perceptual modalities of touch and proprioception. We show that in a timed object-comparison task, concurrent tactile or proprioceptive stimulation to the hands facilitates conceptual processing relative to control stimulation. This facilitation occurs only for small, manipulable objects, where tactile and proprioceptive information form part of the multimodal perceptual experience of interacting with such objects, but facilitation is not observed for large, nonmanipulable objects where such perceptual information is uninformative. Importantly, these facilitation effects are independent of motor and action planning, and indicate that modality-specific perceptual information plays a functionally constitutive role in our mental representations of objects, which supports embodied assumptions that concepts are grounded in the same neural systems that govern perception and action.

Somatotopic Semantic Priming and Prediction in the Motor System

The recognition of action-related sounds and words activates motor regions, reflecting the semantic grounding of these symbols in action information; in addition, motor cortex exerts causal influences on sound perception and language comprehension. However, proponents of classic symbolic theories still dispute the role of modality-preferential systems such as the motor cortex in the semantic processing of meaningful stimuli. To clarify whether the motor system carries semantic processes, we investigated neurophysiological indexes of semantic relationships between action-related sounds and words. Event-related potentials revealed that action-related words produced significantly larger stimulus-evoked (Mismatch Negativity-like) and predictive brain responses (Readiness Potentials) when presented in body-part-incongruent sound contexts (e.g., “kiss” in footstep sound context; “kick” in whistle context) than in body-part-congruent contexts, a pattern reminiscent of neurophysiological correlates of semantic priming. Cortical generators of the semantic relatedness effect were localized in areas traditionally associated with semantic memory, including left inferior frontal cortex and temporal pole, and, crucially, in motor areas, where body-part congruency of action sound–word relationships was indexed by a somatotopic pattern of activation. As our results show neurophysiological manifestations of action-semantic priming in the motor cortex, they prove semantic processing in the motor system and thus in a modality-preferential system of the human brain.

Is the motor system necessary for processing action and abstract emotion words? Evidence from focal brain lesions

Neuroimaging and neuropsychological experiments suggest that modality-preferential cortices, including motor- and somatosensory areas, contribute to the semantic processing of action related concrete words. Still, a possible role of sensorimotor areas in processing abstract meaning remains under debate. Recent fMRI studies indicate an involvement of the left sensorimotor cortex in the processing of abstract-emotional words (e.g., “love”) which resembles activation patterns seen for action words. But are the activated areas indeed necessary for processing action-related and abstract words? The current study now investigates word processing in two patients suffering from focal brain lesion in the left frontocentral motor system. A speeded Lexical Decision Task on meticulously matched word groups showed that the recognition of nouns from different semantic categories – related to food, animals, tools, and abstract-emotional concepts – was differentially affected. Whereas patient HS with a lesion in dorsolateral central sensorimotor systems next to the hand area showed a category-specific deficit in recognizing tool words, patient CA suffering from lesion centered in the left supplementary motor area was primarily impaired in abstract-emotional word processing. These results point to a causal role of the motor cortex in the semantic processing of both action-related object concepts and abstract-emotional concepts and therefore suggest that the motor areas previously found active in action-related and abstract word processing can serve a meaning-specific necessary role in word recognition. The category-specific nature of the observed dissociations is difficult to reconcile with the idea that sensorimotor systems are somehow peripheral or ‘epiphenomenal’ to meaning and concept processing. Rather, our results are consistent with the claim that cognition is grounded in action and perception and based on distributed action perception circuits reaching into modality-preferential cortex.

Therapy-Induced Neuroplasticity of Language in Chronic Post Stroke Aphasia: A Mismatch Negativity Study of (A)Grammatical and Meaningful/less Mini-Constructions

Clinical language performance and neurophysiological correlates of language processing were measured before and after intensive language therapy in patients with chronic (time post stroke >1 year) post stroke aphasia (PSA). As event-related potential (ERP) measure, the mismatch negativity (MMN) was recorded in a distracted oddball paradigm to short spoken sentences. Critical ‘deviant’ sentence stimuli where either well-formed and meaningful, or syntactically, or lexico-semantically incorrect. After 4 weeks of speech-language therapy (SLT) delivered with high intensity (10.5 h per week), clinical language assessment with the Aachen Aphasia Test battery demonstrated significant linguistic improvements, which were accompanied by enhanced MMN responses. More specifically, MMN amplitudes to grammatically correct and meaningful mini-constructions and to ‘jabberwocky’ sentences containing a pseudoword significantly increased after therapy. However, no therapy-related changes in MMN responses to syntactically incorrect strings including agreement violations were observed. While MMN increases to well-formed meaningful strings can be explained both at the word and construction levels, the neuroplastic change seen for ‘jabberwocky’ sentences suggests an explanation in terms of constructions. The results confirm previous reports that intensive SLT leads to improvements of linguistic skills in chronic aphasia patients and now demonstrate that this clinical improvement is associated with enhanced automatic brain indexes of construction processing, although no comparable change is present for ungrammatical strings. Furthermore, the data confirm that the language-induced MMN is a useful tool to map functional language recovery in PSA.

Efficacy of intensive aphasia therapy in patients with chronic stroke: a randomised controlled trial

Objective Recent evidence has fuelled the debate on the role of massed practice in the rehabilitation of chronic post-stroke aphasia. Here, we further determined the optimal daily dosage and total duration of intensive speech-language therapy. Methods Individuals with chronic aphasia more than 1 year post-stroke received Intensive Language-Action Therapy in a randomised, parallel-group, blinded-assessment, controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two outpatient groups who engaged in either highly-intensive practice (Group I: 4 hours daily) or moderately-intensive practice (Group II: 2 hours daily). Both groups went through an initial waiting period and two successive training intervals. Each phase lasted 2 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were defined after each training interval. Results Thirty patients—15 per group—completed the study. A primary outcome measure (Aachen Aphasia Test) revealed no gains in language performance after the waiting period, but indicated significant progress after each training interval (gradual 2-week t-score change [CI]: 1.7 [±0.4]; 0.6 [±0.5]), independent of the intensity level applied (4-week change in Group I: 2.4 [±1.2]; in Group II: 2.2 [±0.8]). A secondary outcome measure (Action Communication Test) confirmed these findings in the waiting period and in the first training interval. In the second training interval, however, only patients with moderately-intensive practice continued to make progress (Time-by-Group interaction: P=0.009, η 2=0.13). Conclusions Our results suggest no added value from more than 2 hours of daily speech-language therapy within 4 weeks. Instead, these results demonstrate that even a small 2-week increase in treatment duration contributes substantially to recovery from chronic post-stroke aphasia.

Communicative-pragmatic assessment is sensitive and time-effective in measuring the outcome of aphasia therapy

A range of methods in clinical research aim to assess treatment-induced progress in aphasia therapy. Here, we used a crossover randomized controlled design to compare the suitability of utterance-centered and dialogue-sensitive outcome measures in speech-language testing. Fourteen individuals with post-stroke chronic non-fluent aphasia each received two types of intensive training in counterbalanced order: conventional confrontation naming, and communicative-pragmatic speech-language therapy (Intensive Language-Action Therapy, an expanded version of Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy). Motivated by linguistic-pragmatic theory and neuroscience data, our dependent variables included a newly created diagnostic instrument, the Action Communication Test (ACT). This diagnostic instrument requires patients to produce target words in two conditions: (i) utterance-centered object naming, and (ii) communicative-pragmatic social interaction based on verbal requests. In addition, we administered a standardized aphasia test battery, the Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT). Composite scores on the ACT and the AAT revealed similar patterns of changes in language performance over time, irrespective of the treatment applied. Changes in language performance were relatively consistent with the AAT results also when considering both ACT subscales separately from each other. However, only the ACT subscale evaluating verbal requests proved to be successful in distinguishing between different types of training in our patient sample. Critically, testing duration was substantially shorter for the entire ACT (10–20 min) than for the AAT (60–90 min). Taken together, the current findings suggest that communicative-pragmatic methods in speech-language testing provide a sensitive and time-effective measure to determine the outcome of aphasia therapy.

Aphasia and cognitive impairment decrease the reliability of rnTMS language mapping

BackgroundNavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is a non-invasive mapping tool to locate functional areas of the brain. While gaining importance in the preoperative planning process in motor eloquent regions, its usefulness for reliably identifying language areas is still being discussed. The aim of this study was to identify biometric factors which might influence and therefore bias the results of repetitive nTMS (rnTMS) over cortex areas relevant for language.MethodWe included data of 101 patients with language eloquent brain lesions who underwent preoperative rnTMS examination bihemispherically. Prior to rnTMS mapping, all patients performed two to three baseline runs of a picture-naming paradigm without stimulation, and only promptly and correctly named objects were retained for TMS mapping. Nine biometric factors (age, gender, baseline dataset, cognitive performance score, aphasia score, histology of lesion, affected hemisphere, location of lesion on the hemisphere, pain caused by examination) were included in the statistical analysis measuring their correlation with the incidence of errors during baseline naming as well as during rnTMS mapping.ResultsThe incidence of baseline errors correlated with aphasia (p < 0.0001) and cognitive impairment (p < 0.0001). No significant correlation was observed between most biometric factors and errors during rnTMS mapping. Factors significantly affecting the incidence of errors during rnTMS mapping were again aphasia (p < 0.023) and cognitive impairment (p < 0.038). Patients affected by those factors showed a significantly higher baseline error rate, starting at 28% error rate.ConclusionsPatients with pre-existing aphasia or severe cognitive impairment did still make significantly more mistakes during rnTMS mapping than non-aphasic patients despite baseline stratification, rendering the question of whether the procedure is reliable in those patient groups. Baseline testing revealed a cut-off point at 28% error rate. Interestingly, age or pain (caused by the examination) did not bias the results.