Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

How Does iReadMore Therapy Change the Reading Network of Patients with Central Alexia?

Sheila J. Kerry, Oscar M. Aguilar, William Penny, Jennifer T. Crinion, Alex P. Leff and Zoe V.J. Woodhead
Journal of Neuroscience 17 July 2019, 39 (29) 5719-5727; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1426-18.2019
Sheila J. Kerry
1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, United Kingdom,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oscar M. Aguilar
2Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology,
3The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom,
4Facultad de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 110311 Bogotá, Colombia,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Penny
5School of Psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer T. Crinion
1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, United Kingdom,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex P. Leff
1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, United Kingdom,
2Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology,
3The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zoe V.J. Woodhead
2Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology,
6Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Central alexia (CA) is an acquired reading disorder co-occurring with a generalized language deficit (aphasia). The roles of perilesional and ipsilesional tissue in recovery from poststroke aphasia are unclear. We investigated the impact of reading training (using iReadMore, a therapy app) on the connections within and between the right and left hemisphere of the reading network of patients with CA. In patients with pure alexia, iReadMore increased feedback from left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) region to the left occipital (OCC) region. We aimed to identify whether iReadMore therapy was effective through a similar mechanism in patients with CA. Participants with chronic poststroke CA (n = 23) completed 35 h of iReadMore training over 4 weeks. Reading accuracy for trained and untrained words was assessed before and after therapy. The neural response to reading trained and untrained words in the left and right OCC, ventral occipitotemporal, and IFG regions was examined using event-related magnetoencephalography. The training-related modulation in effective connectivity between regions was modeled at the group level with dynamic causal modeling. iReadMore training improved participants' reading accuracy by an average of 8.4% (range, −2.77 to 31.66) while accuracy for untrained words was stable. Training increased regional sensitivity in bilateral frontal and occipital regions, and strengthened feedforward connections within the left hemisphere. Our data suggest that iReadMore training in these patients modulates lower-order visual representations, as opposed to higher-order, more abstract representations, to improve word-reading accuracy.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT This is the first study to conduct a network-level analysis of therapy effects in participants with poststroke central alexia. When patients trained with iReadMore (a multimodal, behavioral, mass practice, computer-based therapy), reading accuracy improved by an average 8.4% on trained items. A network analysis of the magnetoencephalography data associated with this improvement revealed an increase in regional sensitivity in bilateral frontal and occipital regions and strengthening of feedforward connections within the left hemisphere. This indicates that in patients with CA iReadMore engages lower-order, intact resources within the left hemisphere (posterior to their lesion locations) to improve word reading. This provides a foundation for future research to investigate reading network modulation in different CA subtypes, or for sentence-level therapy.

  • alexia
  • aphasia
  • DCM
  • MEG
  • reading
  • stroke

Introduction

Central alexia (CA; also known as alexia with agraphia; Dejerine, 1891) is a reading disorder that occurs within the context of a generalized language disorder (aphasia). Patients with CA find reading slow and effortful and make frequent errors (Leff and Starrfelt, 2013). There is no agreed treatment for CA, and to date there have been no group-level investigations of how neural plasticity may support reading recovery in patients with CA. In the study by Woodhead et al. (2018), we demonstrated that a computerized word-reading therapy app improved word reading in 21 patients with CA. The aim of this cross-modal training was to coactivate orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations of the word to rebuild the neuronal connections between them. The present study aimed to improve our understanding of the therapeutic mechanisms in CA, with a view to developing stratified therapy pathways in the future.

After a left hemisphere stroke, the role of spared ipsilesional regions and right hemisphere homologs in supporting aphasia recovery are unclear (Adair et al., 2000; Tsapkini et al., 2011; Crinion and Leff, 2015; Hartwigsen and Saur, 2019). There is evidence for functional reorganization in spared left hemisphere regions (Jobard et al., 2003; Fridriksson, 2010; Abel et al., 2014, 2015; van Hees et al., 2014; Bonilha et al., 2016; Pillay et al., 2018), while other studies have identified right hemisphere homologs as fulfilling this function (Meinzer et al., 2006; Richter et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2017); both accounts may be correct and aphasia recovery may rely on a combination of mechanisms (Saur et al., 2006; Kurland et al., 2008; Turkeltaub et al., 2011; Crinion and Leff, 2015; Mohr et al., 2016). We modeled a bilateral reading network in patients with CA to ascertain the effects of therapy within and between the hemispheres.

While poststroke aphasia is the result of focal damage, it is increasingly viewed as a network disorder (Hartwigsen and Saur, 2019). Neuroimaging studies of skilled readers show that word reading activates a predominantly left-lateralized network of occipitotemporal, temporal, and inferior frontal areas (Heim et al., 2005; Graves et al., 2010; Price, 2012; Carreiras et al., 2014; Hoffman et al., 2015; Perrone-Bertolotti et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Zhou and Shu, 2017). The local combination detector (LCD) model of visual word recognition suggests that because neurons are tuned to progressively larger fragments of a word as their location moves anteriorly, word reading is achieved primarily through feedforward processing along the visual ventral stream (Dehaene et al., 2005). However, an alternative account suggests that efficient word recognition relies on interactive feedforward (bottom-up) and feedback (top-down) processing within this network (Cornelissen et al., 2009; Wheat et al., 2010; Price and Devlin, 2011; Woodhead et al., 2014). Dynamic causal modeling (DCM) identifies the causal influence of one region upon another, allowing us to explore the interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes.

Within the domain of reading rehabilitation, in participants with pure alexia [PA; typically caused by left posterior cerebral artery (PCA) stroke], reading training was associated with stronger connectivity within the left hemisphere, and increased top-down connectivity from frontal to occipital (OCC) regions (Woodhead et al., 2013). This was interpreted as evidence that predictions from phonological and/or semantic representations in left frontal cortex facilitated visual word recognition after training. However, in CA [typically caused by left middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke], these “central” language representations are damaged or disconnected.

As there is little in the existing literature to guide predictions of network reorganization following therapy in CA, we based our hypothesis on what is known about the reading network in healthy control subjects and pure alexia. The training used iReadMore, an adaptive word-reading training app, which improved word-reading ability for trained items in pure alexia (Woodhead et al., 2013) and CA (Woodhead et al., 2018). Using DCM of magnetoencephalography (MEG) data, we investigated how effective connectivity within the reading network changed as a result of therapy. Our speculative hypothesis was that training would strengthen feedback connections within the left hemisphere, and the self-connection of the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). It is anticipated that these analyses will yield predictions for future investigations of how neural network plasticity supports language recovery.

Materials and Methods

Study design

A within-subject, repeated-measures design was used. The data presented here were acquired during a larger crossover study that assessed the effects of iReadMore therapy and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on single-word reading (Woodhead et al., 2018). Participants completed an MEG scan before (T3) and after (T4) a 4 week reading therapy block (Fig. 1). Additionally, two baseline language assessments were conducted 4 weeks before training (T1 and T2) and at two time-points after training (T5 and T6).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Study design. The baseline assessment took place over two testing sessions 1–2 weeks apart (T1 and T2). An MEG scan and behavioral assessment was conducted before (T3) and after (T4) a 4 week block of iReadMore training.

During the therapy block, participants were asked to amass ∼35 h of iReadMore training, through 40 min face-to-face sessions attended three times per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; 11 sessions in total) supplemented with independent use at home.

The effect of tDCS was not analyzed in this article as (1) it was not designed to be tested using a between-subjects design, as would be required in the current analysis; and (2) the effect size of tDCS was small compared with the main effect of iReadMore.

Testing and face-to-face therapy sessions were conducted at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London.

Participants

Twenty-three participants with CA (15 males; mean age, 52 years; age range, 26–78 years; Table 1, demographic information), which was diagnosed by a neurologist or speech and language therapist, were recruited from either the PLORAS (Predicting Language Outcome and Recovery After Stroke) database of stroke patients held at The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (Seghier et al., 2016), or speech and language therapy services at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Demographic and clinical information on each patient

The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) left-hemisphere middle cerebral artery stroke with at least partial sparing of left IFG; (2) >12 months poststroke; (3) dominant English language use in activities of daily living; and (4) CA, operationalized as impaired word reading [Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT) word reading T-score, <61] and impaired spoken language (CAT naming, <63; picture description, <61). Screening and diagnoses were conducted historically in a clinical setting (data available on request from the authors), but additional baseline tests (as described by Woodhead et al., 2018) were performed at the start of the trial, including CAT Naming, nonword reading and word reading (Table 1).

Exclusion criteria included the following: (1) premorbid history of neurological or psychiatric illness; (2) history of developmental language disorder; (3) severe spoken output deficit and /or speech apraxia (CAT repetition, <44); (4) seizures in the past 12 months; (5) contraindications to MRI scanning; and (6) extensive damage to left IFG.

Participants were classified as having phonological (n = 13), deep (n = 9), or surface dyslexia (n = 1) according to the pattern of word and non-word-reading performance at baseline, using criteria described by Whitworth et al. (2016) (for further details, see Woodhead et al., 2018). The low proportion of patients with surface dyslexia is consistent with an opportunity sample of stroke patients described by Brookshire et al. (2014).

The participant information sheet was provided in written and auditory forms. All participants gave informed written consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Queen Square Research Ethics Committee approved this project.

Structural MRI

T1-weighted MRI scans were obtained in a 3.0 T whole-body MR system (Magnetom TIM Trio, Siemens) equipped with a standard 32 channel head coil radiofrequency (RF) receiver and RF body coil for transmission.

Data were preprocessed using Statistical Parametric Mapping 12 (SPM12; http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm12/) mounted in Matlab 2014b (MathWorks). Magnetic transfer (MT) maps were obtained for each participant using Voxel Based Quantification (VBQ) toolbox in SPM12 (Weiskopf et al., 2013; Callaghan et al., 2014). The MT maps were spatially normalized into standard MNI space and segmented into tissue types (e.g., gray and white matter, CSF, atypical, or lesion). Lesions were identified using Automated Lesion Identification toolbox in SPM12 (Seghier et al., 2008). This compared a CA participant's segmented MT maps to the MT maps of 29 healthy control subjects. A binary lesion image was created for each CA participant, upon which candidate dipole location solutions could be compared. Across our group of participants, lesion location was predominantly within the territory of the left middle cerebral artery, centered on the supramarginal gyrus (Fig. 2B).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A, Optimal source locations identified using variational Bayesian equivalent current dipole modeling for each subject, plotted on a glass brain in Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space. Average dipole location across the group are given for the six sources: occipital (blue), ventral occipital temporal (gray), and inferior frontal gyrus (red). B, Lesion overlay map for the group (n = 23) where hotter colors indicate greater number of patients with lesions affecting that area.

iReadMore training

For a more detailed description of iReadMore training, see Woodhead et al., 2018. Briefly, iReadMore aims to retrain whole-word reading by repeatedly exposing the user to pairings of written and spoken words, and an associated picture. The aim of this cross-modal training is to coactivate orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations of the word to rebuild the neuronal connections between them. iReadMore was administered on a tablet computer. The software cycled through “training” and “challenge” phases. During the training phase, participants were presented with 10 face-down cards. On selection, the reverse of the card revealed the written word, spoken word, and a picture of the word (all congruent with each other).

The challenge phase consisted of up to 30 trials. In each trial, a written and spoken word were presented simultaneously. In half the trials, the words were different (incongruent). Participants made the same/different judgements via a button press, and points were accrued for correct responses. If a criterion score was reached, they passed the level. The algorithm within the iReadMore software adjusted task difficulty based on the user's performance. This modifies the following: (1) the similarity between the target spoken word and the written foils in the challenge phase (three levels); (2) the exposure duration of the written words (from a maximum of 4000 ms to a minimum of 100 ms); and (3) the criterion score required to pass a level.

Training stimuli

High-frequency words (SUBTLEXWF > 50) of three to six letters were drawn from the SUBTLEX database (Brysbaert and New, 2009). Two matched lists of 180 words were created. For each word on the A list, there was a corresponding word on the B list matched for letter length, syllable length, written frequency, and imageability.

Over two baseline sessions (T1 and T2), CA participants completed an assessment of the entire word corpus whereby they read each word out aloud. Based on each participant's baseline performance (word-reading accuracy and speed), a customized set of 150 matched words from the A and B word lists were selected (for further details, please see Woodhead et al., 2018, their Supplementary Materials). One list was assigned to be trained, and the other to be untrained. These word lists were individualized for each patient. The aims of this word selection process were as follows: to have no significant difference in the patient's baseline reading ability (accuracy or reaction time) between the selected A and B words; to have no significant difference in psycholinguistic variables (length, frequency, imageability, regularity, or N-size) between the selected A and B words; and to have no significant difference in reading ability (accuracy or RT) between the selected word lists and the full list of words tested at baseline. The purpose of this latter aim was to avoid the possibility of regression to the mean, which would have been an issue if we had only selected words for therapy that the participants read poorly at baseline.

At the testing sessions immediately before and after therapy (T3 and T4), participants were tested on a subset of 90 words from each word list (trained items and untrained items; for further details, see Woodhead et al., 2018). Words were presented in a random order over three blocks. E-prime software (Schneider et al., 2002) was used to present words in the center of a screen in black, lower case, size 36 Arial font on a gray background. Participants were instructed to read the words aloud as quickly and accurately as they could into a voice-key microphone. Accuracy was coded on-line as follows: 1, correct response; 0.5, self corrected errors or verbal false starts; and 0, incorrect response. Responses >4 s poststimulus onset were coded as incorrect. Reaction times were excluded for the following: (1) voice-key failures; (2) incorrect and self-corrected responses; and (3) RTs >2 SDs from the subject's mean. To identify voice-key failures, a visual cue was displayed at the bottom left corner of the screen, which informed the experimenter when the microphone had been triggered. Before inputting the accuracy of the participant's response, the experimenter coded the validity of the voice-key trigger, as follows: 1, accurate; and 2, inaccurate voice-key trigger (e.g., if the participant said “erm” or a response was not detected by the microphone).

MEG scanning procedures

Scans were acquired using a VSM MegTech Omega 275 MEG scanner with 274 axial gradiometers in software third gradient-mode at a sampling rate of 480 Hz. Fiducial markers on the nasion and left and right preauricular points were used to determine head location in the scanner. Head movements were minimized by positioning the participant in a comfortable, well supported position and using padding around the participant's head. Recordings from fiducial markers indicated that the average head movement across a run was 9.14 mm (SD, 8.18 mm).

MEG experimental paradigm and stimuli

Participants were seated upright in the scanner. Trained words (n = 150), untrained words (n = 150), “false font” symbol strings (n = 150; described previously in Woodhead et al., 2013), and common proper names (e.g., “Jenny,” “Bob”; n = 40) were projected onto the screen ∼50 cm in front of the participant. Each stimulus was presented for 1000 ms followed by a crosshair for 2000 ms with a total interstimulus interval of 3000 ms. The stimuli were presented lower case Arial font of size 50 (Fig. 3). The stimuli types were evenly distributed in a pseudorandom order across four runs and presented using Cogent software (www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/cogent.php). Participants were instructed to read the words silently. To ensure that participants attended to every trial, they were asked to respond via button press when they read a proper name. These catch trials were removed from the analysis. The false font condition was included to allow comparison with a dataset from healthy control participants, reported previously (Woodhead et al., 2014). The analysis of the false font trials is not reported in the current paper.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Stimulus presentation procedure for the MEG scans. Participants were scanned before and after training. At each session, there were 150 trials for each condition of interest (trained and untrained words), 150 trials for false fonts (omitted from this analysis) and 40 catch trials (names).

MEG preprocessing

The MEG data were preprocessed in SPM12 (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm12/) using Matlab14a (http://uk.mathworks.com/products/matlab/). Preprocessing steps included the following: high-pass filtering at 1 Hz; removal of eye movement artifact using the Berg method (Berg and Scherg, 1994); epoching in the window −100 to 500 ms; low-pass filtering at 30 Hz; and merging the four runs. Artifact detection using a simple threshold at 2500 fT was applied, and channels with >20% of trials removed were rejected. This resulted in the removal of, on average, 40 trials (range, 0–260 trials) for each participant (of a total of 600 trials) and a total of 10 instances where channels were removed. Robust averaging across trials was conducted, and a 30 Hz low-pass filter was applied. Data from the two time-points were merged, and a single shell Boundary Element Method forward model was applied.

Source localization

Dipolar source location was performed with variational Bayes equivalent current dipole modeling (VB-ECD; Kiebel et al., 2008a), which uses a nonlinear optimization algorithm to simultaneously fit a number of dipoles with different prior distributions on their locations and moments, at a single time-point. For each participant, the M170 peak was identified in a semiautomated fashion using the average power of all trained and untrained word trials, in a time window of 0–300 ms. The sensor data at the subject-specifically identified M170 peak was used for the VB-ECD dipole modeling. The M170 peak was reliably present in all subjects and is known to represent orthographic processing (Tarkiainen et al., 1999; Marinkovic et al., 2003; Rossion et al., 2003; Pylkkänen and McElree, 2007; Vartiainen et al., 2009; Zweig and Pylkkänen, 2009).

The Bayesian algorithm requires the specification of a prior mean and variance for the location and moment of each dipole. The location priors were the same as those reported by Woodhead et al., 2014, who demonstrated that a six source model consisting of the left and right OCC regions (MNI coordinates: ±15, −95, 2), ventral occipital temporal (vOT) regions (MNI coordinates: ±44, −58, −15) and IFG (MNI coordinates: ±48, 28, 0) best fit the M170 peak for word reading in healthy control subjects.

Source solutions were free to move to any location. Therefore, the following restrictions were placed on the VB-ECD outputs: source locations must be (1) within the anatomically defined regions of interest, (2) >2 cm from adjacent sources, and (3) outside of the lesion. The solution with the greatest negative free energy (i.e., that best fitted the data) that met the above criteria was selected to be used in the DCM estimations.

Dynamic causal modeling

We used DCM to investigate the effective connectivity between neuronal sources within the reading network and how connection strengths were modulated in response to iReadMore therapy. For a detailed description of the methodology of DCM, the reader is directed to previous studies (David et al., 2005; Kiebel et al., 2006, 2007, 2008b; Garrido et al., 2007; Reato et al., 2013).

Essentially, DCM uses a biologically informed neural mass model that uses the characteristic response rates and patterns of connectivity (Felleman and Van Essen, 1991) of three neuronal subpopulations (pyramidal cells, spiny stellate cells, and inhibitory interneurons) within the layers of the cortical column (Jansen and Rit, 1995) to model the connections between different sources. For example, forward connections innervate spiny stellate cells in the granular layer which results in an excitatory effect, backward connections synapse pyramidal cells and inhibitory interneurons in the supragranular and infragranular layers and hence can be excitatory or inhibitory, lateral connections can innervate all three layers of the cortical column and thus can also have an inhibitory or excitatory influence on the target region.

Self-connections are also modeled within the DCM. These quantify the maximal amplitude of the postsynaptic response in each cell population in that region (Kiebel et al., 2007). These maximal responses are modulated by gain parameters. Gain parameters greater than one increase the maximal response that can be elicited from a neuronal region. As such, the gain parameters are a measure of the sensitivity of a region to an input.

iReadMore training improved participants' word-reading accuracy for trained items only. The aim of the DCM analysis was to identify connection strengths that were significantly modulated by iReadMore training for these trained words, over and above any test–retest effects observed for untrained items. The data used for the DCM analysis were the evoked responses to trained and untrained words presented before and after therapy (Tr_Before; Un_Before; Tr_After; Un_After). We were interested in how therapy affected the early stages of word processing, so activity in the 0–300 ms time window was modeled. The sensory inputs to the model were specified as entering the left and right OCC. The A matrix modeled the connection strengths for the Tr_Before trials. Two B matrices modeled how connection strengths were modulated by therapy. The first (Matrix B1) estimated the modulation for trained words over time (Tr_Before vs Tr_After). To ensure the modulation observed in Matrix B1 did not represent a simple effect of time, rather than training per se, Matrix B2 modeled modulation for untrained items after therapy versus to-be-trained items before therapy (Tr_Before vs Un_After). It is worth noting that an alternative analysis could be to compare Un_Before vs Un_After for the B2 matrix, as this would have meant that both B1 and B2 would have compared the same items before versus after training. However, this mismatch of items in B2 is unlikely to have made a significant impact on the results because before training all items were novel and each patient's to-be-trained and never-trained word lists were matched for baseline performance and psycholinguistic properties.

Similar to other studies (Woodhead et al., 2013, 2014), and to reduce the model space to a manageable computational level, we placed the following constraints on how network connections varied among models, as follows: (1) lateral connections were only allowed within the same level of the cortical hierarchy (i.e., left OCC to right OCC) and not between levels (e.g., left OCC to right vOT); (2) lateral connections were reciprocal (e.g., a connection from the left vOT to right vOT was mirrored by a connection from the right vOT to the left vOT); and (3) forward and backward connections were symmetrical between hemispheres. This resulted in nine independently varying connections, leading to 512 models (2∧9) per subject, all of which were fitted to their individual MEG data.

Bayesian model averaging

Random-effects Bayesian model averaging (BMA; Penny et al., 2010) was used to identify the average change in each connection strength across all models and all participants. BMA considers the entire model space and computes weighted averages according to the posterior probability for each model.

Experimental design and statistical analysis

Word-reading test analysis.

Change in word-reading accuracy and RT were calculated over the baseline period and training block for each word list. Change was simply calculated as the difference from one time-point to the next. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were calculated with within-subject factors of block [pretraining (T3-Baseline) vs training (T4–T3)] and Word-List (Untrained vs Trained).

MEG analysis: group-level effects of iReadMore therapy on the reading network.

The DCM analysis identified the training-related modulation in effective connectivity between regions at the group level. We defined whether connections showed training-related modulation according to the following two criteria: (1) there was significant modulation in Matrix B1 (Tr_Before vs Tr_After); and (2) the therapy-specific modulation in Matrix B1 was significantly different to the nonspecific change over time in Matrix B2 (Tr_Before vs Un_After).

For the first criterion, a nonparametric proportion test was used for each connection to test whether modulation in Matrix B1 (Tr_Before vs Tr_After) was significant. A Gaussian distribution based on the posterior mean and SD was generated for each connection from which 10,000 samples were obtained. A connection was deemed to be significantly stronger after therapy if >90% of samples were >1; and significantly weaker if >90% of samples were <1 (Richardson et al., 2011; Seghier, 2013; Woodhead et al., 2013).

To identify therapy-specific training effects, rather than a simple effect of time, a second analysis was performed to compare the B1 and B2 matrices. The B1 matrix provides the modulation of connections for training over time (Tr_Before vs Tr_After), whereas the B2 matrix encapsulates the main effect of time in the absence of any training (Tr_Before vs Un_After). If the experiment only induced a simple effect of time, the modulation of the two B matrices would be very similar, and not significantly different from each other. If, on the other hand, there was an additional effect of therapy over time, we would expect the modulation in the two B matrices to be different. Using a fixed-effect within-subject Bayesian model comparison, we compared the following two models: (1) Matrix B1 ≠ Matrix B2; and (2) Matrix B1 = Matrix B2. Log Bayes factors of >3 indicate that connections in B1 were significantly different to those in B2 (i.e., the effect of therapy could not be simply explained as an effect of time). If both criteria are satisfied, then the connection is significantly modulated by reading therapy (criterion 1) and is not simply explained as an effect of time (criterion 2).

Results

Training effects on reading ability

Participants completed on average 33.35 h (SD = 2.65 h; range, 25.33–37.21 h) of iReadMore therapy over the training period.

A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant block by word-list interaction for word-reading accuracy (F(1,22) = 11.869, p = 0.00231; Fig. 4). Paired t tests showed that the change in accuracy for trained words was significantly greater during the training block compared with the pretraining block (t(22) = −3.11, p = 0.010), and change over the training block was significantly greater for trained words compared with untrained words (t(22) = 5.89, p = 0.001). Change in accuracy for untrained items was not significantly different between blocks (t(22) = 1.479, p = 0.153). This indicates that therapy significantly improved word-reading accuracy for trained words only. Word-reading accuracy improved by on average 8.4% (SD = 7.36; range, −2.77% to 31.66%) for trained words compared with −0.11% (SD = 5.39; range, −13.33% to 8.36%) for untrained words. A repeated-measures ANOVA of word-reading reaction time data revealed no significant block by word list interaction (F(1,21) = 0.461, p = 0.505) and no main effect of block (F(1,21) = 2.983, p = 0.099) or word list F(1,21) = 0.066, p = 0.800).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

A, B, Change over time in mean word-reading accuracy (A; n = 23) and reaction times (B; n = 22) for trained words (blue) and untrained words (red). Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. In these pirate plots, each gray point represents a participant, the solid bars show the means and the shaded boxes indicate the 95% confidence intervals.

MEG scanner task results

Participants successfully completed the within-scanner name detection task. The average accuracy for name trials was 89.71% (SD = 16.01), and the average percentage of false alarms (where the button was pressed for a trial other than a name) were 3.91% (SD = 6.06).

Cardiac artifacts

In response to a reviewer's comment, we tested whether cardiac artifacts could be confounding our results by carrying out a post hoc independent component analysis on the raw MEG data. A heartbeat artifact component was identifiable in n = 18 of 23 participants. This component was epoched according to trial onset times for the four main conditions. The “cardiac effective refractory period” data were averaged into 10 ms time bins over the 0–300 ms time window (giving 30 time bins). A 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA at each time-point with factors time (before vs after training) and wordlist (trained vs untrained words) revealed no significant main effect of either time or wordlist in any of these 30 time bins.

Cardiac artifacts may have also added unsystematic noise to the data. This noise was, however, not related to the trial type or time from trial onset. All DCM analyses were based on averaged data (typically 150 trials), which would have significantly attenuated this confound. Additionally, we used a robust averaging procedure, which uses an iterative process to place weights on within-trial samples of data based on the degree of artifact present within the trial (Leski, 2002; Litvak et al., 2011). When the data are averaged across trials, these weightings serve to down-weight outliers.

We conclude that any cardiac artifacts were unlikely to have influenced our DCM results, due to their random occurrence with respect to both stimulus onset and stimulus type allied with the use of robust averaging to minimize any effect that they may have had on the data.

Source localization

The average latency of the M170 peak was 189.71 ms (latency range, 156.67–215.00 ms), and the average peak amplitude was 37.15 fT (amplitude range, 14.46–63.8 fT). To show that the M170 peak is related to orthographic processing a correlation was performed between baseline word-reading accuracy and M170 latency and amplitude. This revealed a significant negative correlation (r = −0.550, p = 0.007), indicating that those patients with greater word-reading accuracy had earlier M170 peaks (Fig. 2A, each participant's dipole location plotted on a glass brain).

MEG analysis: group-level effects of iReadMore therapy on the reading network

Table 2 displays the posterior mean and exceedance probability for connections that showed significant therapy effects (i.e., that were significantly modulated in Matrix B1; Tr_Before vs Tr_After), but this modulation was significantly different to that in Matrix B2 (Un_Before vs Tr_After). Eight connections were significantly stronger after therapy than before, and five were significantly weaker (Fig. 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Results of the DCM analysis (group-level effects of iReadMore therapy on the reading network)

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Results of the DCM analysis: modulated connection strengths for words trained with iReadMore after training. These are connections that met the following criteria: (1) there was significant modulation in Matrix B1 (Tr_Before vs Tr_After); and (2) the therapy-specific modulation in Matrix B1 was significantly different to the nonspecific change over time in Matrix B2 (Tr_Before vs Un_After). Connections in red became significantly stronger after training, whereas connections in blue became significantly weaker after training.

Stronger connections for trained words after therapy

Of the eight connections significantly strengthened by iReadMore training, two were feedforward connections in the left hemisphere, two were lateral (between hemisphere) connections from right to left, and four were self-connections. More specifically, they were as follows: the feedforward connections from left OCC to left IFG and left vOT; the lateral connections between the OCCs and IFGs in the right to left direction; the self-connections in left and right OCCs and IFGs (bottom and top of the reading hierarchy, respectively). Self-connections indicate the sensitivity of a region to an input; indicating that these regions became more sensitive to trained words with therapy.

Weaker connections for trained words after therapy

Of the five connections significantly weakened by iReadMore training, three were feedback connections, two were lateral connections, and one was a self-connection. More specifically, they were as follows: the feedback connections from both IFGs to both vOTs and from left vOT to left OCC; the lateral connection between the OCCs in the left to right direction; the self-connection on the right vOT.

Discussion

Our analysis explored training-induced connectivity modulation within the reading network of stroke patients with CA at the group level. We observed changes distributed across the reading network. We identified increased regional sensitivity to trained words (changes in the self-connections of a region) bilaterally at the top (frontal regions) and bottom (occipital regions) of the reading network. As expected, this included the left IFG. The between-region connections modified by therapy were predominately in the left hemisphere or, when interhemispheric, were from right to left. Contrary to our predictions, stronger connections were observed in a feedforward direction from left OCC to vOT and from left vOT to IFG. Together, these findings indicate that iReadMore training predominantly alters left hemisphere connectivity and increases the influence of bottom-up processes.

The therapy-induced inter-regional modulation of connectivity was predominantly in a feedforward direction. Stronger connections were observed between the left OCC and left IFG and left OCC and left vOT. These connections were also stronger for words compared with false fonts in the first 300 ms of reading in a group of healthy control participants (Woodhead et al., 2014). According to the LCD model (Dehaene et al., 2005; Dehaene and Cohen, 2011), neurons are tuned to progressively larger fragments of the word as their location moves along the ventral pathway. It is possible that mass exposure to the orthographic stimuli enhanced the processing of word forms within the ventral reading route. These results, when viewed with the reduced strength of feedback connections from the left IFG to left vOT and from left vOT to left OCC, suggests that iReadMore training in these patients modulates lower-order visual representations, as opposed to higher-order, more abstract ones to improve word-reading accuracy.

This finding is in contrast to patients with PA, where iReadMore training effects were driven by increased feedback from the left IFG to left OCC (Woodhead et al., 2013). It was suggested that improved predictions from the phonological and semantic representations within the IFG constrained the visual processing of trained words. This discrepancy may reflect differences in the lesion location in the two groups; with damage to the PCA territory in patients with PA and the MCA territory in patients with CA (Fig. 2B). In response to therapy, each group may have maximized their available intact resources. Therapy effects in patients with PA are likely to rely on improving feedback support from the intact phonological and semantic representation of words within their left IFG as damage affects input to the reading network. Increased IFG involvement has been identified for tasks demanding subordinate levels of semantic knowledge (Nagel et al., 2008; Whitney et al., 2011) and tasks relating to phonology (Devlin et al., 2003; Drakesmith et al., 2015). By contrast, patients with CA have damage to the central phonological and/or semantic representations (Crisp and Lambon Ralph, 2006; Robson et al., 2012; Hoffman et al., 2015) or connections to them. Therefore, therapy may increase reliance on orthographic processing to drive rebuilding or reconnecting of the phonological and/or semantic representations in a feedforward manner.

Increases in self-connection strengths were observed in the left and right OCCs and IFGs. In DCM, self-connections act as a gain control (Kiebel et al., 2007). The left IFG has been implicated in the early stages of visual word recognition (Cornelissen et al., 2009; Wheat et al., 2010; Woodhead et al., 2014) and was modulated by iReadMore therapy in patients with PA (Woodhead et al., 2013); however, we did not expect the self-connection of the right IFG in our CA patients to also became stronger. Support from the right IFG in language tasks has been reported in aphasia rehabilitation research (Crinion and Price, 2005; Naeser et al., 2011; Turkeltaub et al., 2012; Mohr et al., 2016; Nardo et al., 2017). However, it has been argued that this strategy may be ineffective compared with using perilesional left hemisphere regions (Heiss and Thiel, 2006). The stronger self-connections in both IFGs may reflect the differences in patients' progress with training. In a participant with phonological dyslexia, increased right IFG activity was observed immediately following training. However, when training continued on words read correctly immediately post-therapy, increased activation was observed in left hemisphere perilesional regions (Kurland et al., 2008). It has been suggested that the right IFG has a role in assisting with error monitoring and attention control (Hampshire et al., 2010). The increased connection strength from right IFG to left IFG may suggest that the right IFG has a different role in word reading, potentially related to error monitoring, which will have also been modulated by iReadMore.

Within the right hemisphere, the connection from right IFG to right vOT became weaker with training, as did the right vOT self-connection. This further suggests a reduced role of the right hemisphere in reading after iReadMore training.

iReadMore was designed to retrain word reading across all subtypes of CA through repeated activation of the semantic, phonological, and orthographic representations of trained words (Woodhead et al., 2018). Retraining in this omnibus manner potentially strengthened the mappings between differing cortical representations of words. It should be noted that almost all participants were classified as having either phonological or deep dyslexia (indicating a deficit in the phonological domain or sublexical reading route), which may limit our interpretations to this patient group. However, in practice we observe that few patients have “pure” deficits of one type or another (Leff and Starrfelt, 2013), and it is an open question to what extent reading rehabilitation targets one reading route over the other. In line with previous research (Abel et al., 2015; Rueckl et al., 2015), our study suggests that therapeutic effects play out among both surviving left and right hemisphere regions, albeit with a leftward bias.

The following connections became stronger with training: (1) the right OCC self-connection; and (2) the connection from right to left OCC. This may reflect selective tuning of visual cortex to the orthographic information in trained words induced by multiple, repetitive exposure with trial-by-trial feedback. According to the split fovea theory, visual information from the front of a word is received by the right OCC as the optimal viewing position is usually just to the left of center of any given word (Nazir et al., 1992). Acceptable dipole locations were not restricted to V1 so extra-striate regions will almost certainly have contributed to the observed effects. As hemifield integration occurs above the level of V1, the changes in the right OCC self-connection, and interhemispheric connection to left OCC suggests increased sensitivity to the front part (left of fixation) of trained words (Perea and Lupker, 2003). This is consistent with the LCD reading model (Dehaene et al., 2001; Cohen et al., 2002; Perea and Lupker, 2003).

In summary, in a group of patients with CA (mainly with either phonological or deep dyslexia), improved word reading after iReadMore training was associated with distributed changes across the residual reading network. We identified a mixture of the following: (1) within-hemisphere connections (mainly left-lateralized and feedforward) that were strengthened by therapy; (2) bihemispheric connections (particularly self-connections at both the top and bottom of the reading hierarchy); and (3) between hemisphere connections (right to left pattern). The iReadMore therapy app will be available to the public in 2019 (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/aphasialab/apps/ireadmore.html).

Footnotes

  • This trial was supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant MR/K022563/1). The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov, reference NCT02062619. We thank Gareth Barnes for his guidance regarding the MEG study design and analysis for this project.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Sheila J. Kerry at zoe.woodhead{at}psy.ox.ac.uk

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abel S,
    2. Weiller C,
    3. Huber W,
    4. Willmes K
    (2014) Neural underpinnings for model-oriented therapy of aphasic word production. Neuropsychologia 57:154–165. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.010 pmid:24686092
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Abel S,
    2. Weiller C,
    3. Huber W,
    4. Willmes K,
    5. Specht K
    (2015) Therapy-induced brain reorganization patterns in aphasia. Brain 138:1097–1112. doi:10.1093/brain/awv022 pmid:25688082
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Adair JC,
    2. Nadeau SE,
    3. Conway TW,
    4. Gonzalez-Rothi LJ,
    5. Heilman PC,
    6. Green IA,
    7. Heilman KM
    (2000) Alterations in the functional anatomy of reading induced by rehabilitation of an alexic patient. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 13:303–311. pmid:11186167
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Berg P,
    2. Scherg M
    (1994) A multiple source approach to the correction of eye artifacts. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90:229–241. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(94)90094-9 pmid:7511504
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bonilha L,
    2. Gleichgerrcht E,
    3. Nesland T,
    4. Rorden C,
    5. Fridriksson J
    (2016) Success of anomia treatment in aphasia is associated with preserved architecture of global and left temporal lobe structural networks. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 30:266–279. doi:10.1177/1545968315593808 pmid:26150147
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Brookshire CE,
    2. Wilson JP,
    3. Nadeau SE,
    4. Gonzalez Rothi LJ,
    5. Kendall DL
    (2014) Frequency, nature, and predictors of alexia in a convenience sample of individuals with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology 28:1464–1480. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.945389
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Brysbaert M,
    2. New B
    (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods 41:977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 pmid:19897807
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Callaghan MF,
    2. Freund P,
    3. Draganski B,
    4. Anderson E,
    5. Cappelletti M,
    6. Chowdhury R,
    7. Diedrichsen J,
    8. Fitzgerald TH,
    9. Smittenaar P,
    10. Helms G,
    11. Lutti A,
    12. Weiskopf N
    (2014) Widespread age-related differences in the human brain microstructure revealed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Neurobiol Aging 35:1862–1872. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.02.008 pmid:24656835
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Carreiras M,
    2. Armstrong BC,
    3. Perea M,
    4. Frost R
    (2014) The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends Cogn Sci 18:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005 pmid:24373885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Cohen L,
    2. Lehéricy S,
    3. Chochon F,
    4. Lemer C,
    5. Rivaud S,
    6. Dehaene S
    (2002) Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain 125:1054–1069. doi:10.1093/brain/awf094 pmid:11960895
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Cornelissen PL,
    2. Kringelbach ML,
    3. Ellis AW,
    4. Whitney C,
    5. Holliday IE,
    6. Hansen PC
    (2009) Activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in the first 200 ms of reading: evidence from magnetoencephalography (MEG). PLoS One 4:e5359. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005359 pmid:19396362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Crinion JT,
    2. Leff AP
    (2015) Using functional imaging to understand therapeutic effects in poststroke aphasia. Curr Opin Neurol 28:330–337. doi:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000217 pmid:26110806
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Crinion J,
    2. Price CJ
    (2005) Right anterior superior temporal activation predicts auditory sentence comprehension following aphasic stroke. Brain 128:2858–2871. doi:10.1093/brain/awh659 pmid:16234297
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Crisp J,
    2. Lambon Ralph MA
    (2006) Unlocking the nature of the phonological-deep dyslexia continuum: the keys to reading aloud are in phonology and semantics. J Cogn Neurosci 18:348–362. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.3.348 pmid:16513001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. David O,
    2. Harrison L,
    3. Friston KJ
    (2005) Modelling event-related responses in the brain. Neuroimage 25:756–770. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.030 pmid:15808977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Dehaene S,
    2. Cohen L
    (2011) The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends Cogn Sci 15:254–262. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.003 pmid:21592844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Dehaene S,
    2. Naccache L,
    3. Cohen L,
    4. Bihan DL,
    5. Mangin JF,
    6. Poline JB,
    7. Rivière D
    (2001) Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming. Nat Neurosci 4:752–758. doi:10.1038/89551 pmid:11426233
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Dehaene S,
    2. Cohen L,
    3. Sigman M,
    4. Vinckier F
    (2005) The neural code for written words: a proposal. Trends Cogn Sci 9:335–341. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004 pmid:15951224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Dejerine J
    (1891) Sur un cas de cecite verbale avec agraphie, suivi dautopsie. C R Soc du Biol 43:197–201.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Devlin JT,
    2. Matthews PM,
    3. Rushworth MF
    (2003) Semantic processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: a combined functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation study. J Cogn Neurosci 15:71–84. doi:10.1162/089892903321107837 pmid:12590844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Drakesmith M,
    2. El-Deredy W,
    3. Welbourne S
    (2015) Differential phonological and semantic modulation of neurophysiological responses to visual word recognition. Neuropsychobiology 72:46–56. doi:10.1159/000379752 pmid:26337735
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Felleman DJ,
    2. Van Essen DC
    (1991) Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 1:1–47. doi:10.1093/cercor/1.1.1 pmid:1822724
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Fridriksson J
    (2010) Preservation and modulation of specific left hemisphere regions is vital for treated recovery from anomia in stroke. J Neurosci 30:11558–11564. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2227-10.2010 pmid:20810877
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Garrido MI,
    2. Kilner JM,
    3. Kiebel SJ,
    4. Stephan KE,
    5. Friston KJ
    (2007) Dynamic causal modelling of evoked potentials: a reproducibility study. Neuroimage 36:571–580. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.014 pmid:17478106
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Graves WW,
    2. Desai R,
    3. Humphries C,
    4. Seidenberg MS,
    5. Binder JR
    (2010) Neural systems for reading aloud: a multiparametric approach. Cereb Cortex 20:1799–1815. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp245 pmid:19920057
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Hampshire A,
    2. Chamberlain SR,
    3. Monti MM,
    4. Duncan J,
    5. Owen AM
    (2010) The role of the right inferior frontal gyrus: inhibition and attentional control. Neuroimage 50:1313–1319. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.109 pmid:20056157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Hartwigsen G,
    2. Saur D
    (2019) Neuroimaging of stroke recovery from aphasia: insights into plasticity of the human language network. Neuroimage 190:14–31. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.056 pmid:29175498
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Heim S,
    2. Alter K,
    3. Ischebeck AK,
    4. Amunts K,
    5. Eickhoff SB,
    6. Mohlberg H,
    7. Zilles K,
    8. von Cramon DY,
    9. Friederici AD
    (2005) The role of the left Brodmann's areas 44 and 45 in reading words and pseudowords. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 25:982–993. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.09.022 pmid:16310346
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Heiss WD,
    2. Thiel A
    (2006) A proposed regional hierarchy in recovery of post-stroke aphasia. Brain Lang 98:118–123. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.02.002 pmid:16564566
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Hoffman P,
    2. Lambon Ralph MA,
    3. Woollams AM
    (2015) Triangulation of the neurocomputational architecture underpinning reading aloud. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:E3719–E3728. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502032112 pmid:26124121
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Jansen BH,
    2. Rit VG
    (1995) Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns. Biol Cybern 73:357–366. doi:10.1007/BF00199471 pmid:7578475
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Jobard G,
    2. Crivello F,
    3. Tzourio-Mazoyer N
    (2003) Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: a metanalysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage 20:693–712. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00343-4 pmid:14568445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Kiebel SJ,
    2. David O,
    3. Friston KJ
    (2006) Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG/MEG with lead field parameterization. Neuroimage 30:1273–1284. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.055 pmid:16490364
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Kiebel SJ,
    2. Garrido MI,
    3. Friston KJ
    (2007) Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses: the role of intrinsic connections. Neuroimage 36:332–345. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.046 pmid:17462916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Kiebel SJ,
    2. Daunizeau J,
    3. Phillips C,
    4. Friston KJ
    (2008a) Variational Bayesian inversion of the equivalent current dipole model in EEG/MEG. Neuroimage 39:728–741. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.005 pmid:17951076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Kiebel SJ,
    2. Garrido MI,
    3. Moran RJ,
    4. Friston KJ
    (2008b) Dynamic causal modelling for EEG and MEG. Cogn Neurodyn 2:121–136. doi:10.1007/s11571-008-9038-0 pmid:19003479
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Kurland J,
    2. Cortes CR,
    3. Wilke M,
    4. Sperling AJ,
    5. Lott SN,
    6. Tagamets MA,
    7. Vanmeter J,
    8. Friedman RB
    (2008) Neural mechanisms underlying learning following semantic mediation treatment in a case of phonologic alexia. Brain Imaging Behav 2:147–162. doi:10.1007/s11682-008-9027-2 pmid:20119495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Lee YS,
    2. Zreik JT,
    3. Hamilton RH
    (2017) Patterns of neural activity predict picture-naming performance of a patient with chronic aphasia. Neuropsychologia 94:52–60. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.010 pmid:27864027
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Leff AP,
    2. Starrfelt R
    (2013) Alexia: diagnosis, treatment and theory. London: Springer Science and Business Media.
  40. ↵
    1. Leski JM
    (2002) Robust weighted averaging [of biomedical signals]. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49:796–804. doi:10.1109/TBME.2002.800757 pmid:12148818
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Litvak V,
    2. Mattout J,
    3. Kiebel S,
    4. Phillips C,
    5. Henson R,
    6. Kilner J,
    7. Barnes G,
    8. Oostenveld R,
    9. Daunizeau J,
    10. Flandin G,
    11. Penny W,
    12. Friston K
    (2011) EEG and MEG data analysis in SPM8. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011:852961. doi:10.1155/2011/852961 pmid:21437221
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Marinkovic K,
    2. Dhond RP,
    3. Dale AM,
    4. Glessner M,
    5. Carr V,
    6. Halgren E
    (2003) Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron 38:487–497. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00197-1 pmid:12741994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Meinzer M,
    2. Flaisch T,
    3. Obleser J,
    4. Assadollahi R,
    5. Djundja D,
    6. Barthel G,
    7. Rockstroh B
    (2006) Brain regions essential for improved lexical access in an aged aphasic patient: a case report. BMC Neurol 6:28. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-6-28 pmid:16916464
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Mohr B,
    2. MacGregor LJ,
    3. Difrancesco S,
    4. Harrington K,
    5. Pulvermüller F,
    6. Shtyrov Y
    (2016) Hemispheric contributions to language reorganisation: an MEG study of neuroplasticity in chronic post stroke aphasia. Neuropsychologia 93:413–424. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.04.006 pmid:27063061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Naeser MA,
    2. Martin PI,
    3. Theoret H,
    4. Kobayashi M,
    5. Fregni F,
    6. Nicholas M,
    7. Tormos JM,
    8. Steven MS,
    9. Baker EH,
    10. Pascual-Leone A
    (2011) TMS suppression of right pars triangularis, but not pars opercularis, improves naming in aphasia. Brain Lang 119:206–213. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.07.005 pmid:21864891
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Nagel IE,
    2. Schumacher EH,
    3. Goebel R,
    4. D'Esposito M
    (2008) Functional MRI investigation of verbal selection mechanisms in lateral prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 43:801–807. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.017 pmid:18692142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Nardo D,
    2. Holland R,
    3. Leff AP,
    4. Price CJ,
    5. Crinion JT
    (2017) Less is more: neural mechanisms underlying anomia treatment in chronic aphasic patients. Brain 140:3039–3054. doi:10.1093/brain/awx234 pmid:29053773
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Nazir TA,
    2. Heller D,
    3. Sussmann C
    (1992) Letter visibility and word recognition: the optimal viewing position in printed words. Percept Psychophys 52:315–328. doi:10.3758/BF03209148 pmid:1408642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Penny WD,
    2. Stephan KE,
    3. Daunizeau J,
    4. Rosa MJ,
    5. Friston KJ,
    6. Schofield TM,
    7. Leff AP
    (2010) Comparing families of dynamic causal models. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000709. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000709 pmid:20300649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Perea M,
    2. Lupker SJ
    (2003) Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Mem Cognit 31:829–841. doi:10.3758/BF03196438 pmid:14651292
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Perrone-Bertolotti M,
    2. Kauffmann L,
    3. Pichat C,
    4. Vidal JR,
    5. Baciu M
    (2017) Effective connectivity between ventral occipito-temporal and ventral inferior frontal cortex during lexico-semantic processing. A dynamic causal modeling study. Front Hum Neurosci 11:325. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00325 pmid:28690506
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Pillay SB,
    2. Gross WL,
    3. Graves WW,
    4. Humphries C,
    5. Book DS,
    6. Binder JR
    (2018) The neural basis of successful word reading in aphasia. J Cogn Neurosci 30:514–525. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01214 pmid:29211656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Price CJ
    (2012) A review and synthesis of the first 20years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage 62:816–847. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.062 pmid:22584224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Price CJ,
    2. Devlin JT
    (2011) The Interactive Account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading. Trends Cogn Sci 15:246–253. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.001 pmid:21549634
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Pylkkänen L,
    2. McElree B
    (2007) An MEG study of silent meaning. J Cogn Neurosci 19:1905–1921. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905 pmid:17958491
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Reato D,
    2. Rahman A,
    3. Bikson M,
    4. Parra LC
    (2013) Effects of weak transcranial alternating current stimulation on brain activity-a review of known mechanisms from animal studies. Front Hum Neurosci 7:687. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00687 pmid:24167483
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Richardson FM,
    2. Seghier ML,
    3. Leff AP,
    4. Thomas MS,
    5. Price CJ
    (2011) Multiple routes from occipital to temporal cortices during reading. J Neurosci 31:8239–8247. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6519-10.2011 pmid:21632945
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Richter M,
    2. Miltner WH,
    3. Straube T
    (2008) Association between therapy outcome and right-hemispheric activation in chronic aphasia. Brain 131:1391–1401. doi:10.1093/brain/awn043 pmid:18349055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Robson H,
    2. Keidel JL,
    3. Ralph MA,
    4. Sage K
    (2012) Revealing and quantifying the impaired phonological analysis underpinning impaired comprehension in Wernicke's aphasia. Neuropsychologia 50:276–288. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.11.022 pmid:22172546
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Rossion B,
    2. Joyce CA,
    3. Cottrell GW,
    4. Tarr MJ
    (2003) Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex. Neuroimage 20:1609–1624. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.07.010 pmid:14642472
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Rueckl JG,
    2. Paz-Alonso PM,
    3. Molfese PJ,
    4. Kuo WJ,
    5. Bick A,
    6. Frost SJ,
    7. Hancock R,
    8. Wu DH,
    9. Mencl WE,
    10. Duñabeitia JA,
    11. Lee JR,
    12. Oliver M,
    13. Zevin JD,
    14. Hoeft F,
    15. Carreiras M,
    16. Tzeng OJ,
    17. Pugh KR,
    18. Frost R
    (2015) Universal brain signature of proficient reading: evidence from four contrasting languages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:15510–15515. doi:10.1073/pnas.1509321112 pmid:26621710
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Saur D,
    2. Lange R,
    3. Baumgaertner A,
    4. Schraknepper V,
    5. Willmes K,
    6. Rijntjes M,
    7. Weiller C
    (2006) Dynamics of language reorganization after stroke. Brain 129:1371–1384. doi:10.1093/brain/awl090 pmid:16638796
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Schneider W,
    2. Eschman A,
    3. Zuccolotto A
    (2002) E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
  64. ↵
    1. Seghier ML
    (2013) The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. Neuroscientist 19:43–61. doi:10.1177/1073858412440596 pmid:22547530
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Seghier ML,
    2. Ramlackhansingh A,
    3. Crinion J,
    4. Leff AP,
    5. Price CJ
    (2008) Lesion identification using unified segmentation-normalisation models and fuzzy clustering. Neuroimage 41:1253–1266. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.028 pmid:18482850
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Seghier ML,
    2. Patel E,
    3. Prejawa S,
    4. Ramsden S,
    5. Selmer A,
    6. Lim L,
    7. Browne R,
    8. Rae J,
    9. Haigh Z,
    10. Ezekiel D,
    11. Hope TMH,
    12. Leff AP,
    13. Price CJ
    (2016) The PLORAS database: a data repository for predicting language outcome and recovery after stroke. Neuroimage 124:1208–1212. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.083 pmid:25882753
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Tarkiainen A,
    2. Helenius P,
    3. Hansen PC,
    4. Cornelissen PL,
    5. Salmelin R
    (1999) Dynamics of letter string perception in the human occipitotemporal cortex. Brain 122:2119–2132. doi:10.1093/brain/122.11.2119 pmid:10545397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Tsapkini K,
    2. Vindiola M,
    3. Rapp B
    (2011) Patterns of brain reorganization subsequent to left fusiform damage: FMRI evidence from visual processing of words and pseudowords, faces and objects. Neuroimage 55:1357–1372. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.024 pmid:21168516
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Turkeltaub PE,
    2. Messing S,
    3. Norise C,
    4. Hamilton RH
    (2011) Are networks for residual language function and recovery consistent across aphasic patients? Neurology 76:1726–1734. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31821a44c1 pmid:21576689
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Turkeltaub PE,
    2. Coslett HB,
    3. Thomas AL,
    4. Faseyitan O,
    5. Benson J,
    6. Norise C,
    7. Hamilton RH
    (2012) The right hemisphere is not unitary in its role in aphasia recovery. Cortex 48:1179–1186. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.06.010 pmid:21794852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. van Hees S,
    2. McMahon K,
    3. Angwin A,
    4. de Zubicaray G,
    5. Copland DA
    (2014) Neural activity associated with semantic versus phonological anomia treatments in aphasia. Brain Lang 129:47–57. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.12.004 pmid:24556337
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Vartiainen J,
    2. Aggujaro S,
    3. Lehtonen M,
    4. Hultén A,
    5. Laine M,
    6. Salmelin R
    (2009) Neural dynamics of reading morphologically complex words. Neuroimage 47:2064–2072. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.002 pmid:19520173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Weiskopf N,
    2. Suckling J,
    3. Williams G,
    4. Correia MM,
    5. Inkster B,
    6. Tait R,
    7. Ooi C,
    8. Bullmore ET,
    9. Lutti A
    (2013) Quantitative multi-parameter mapping of R1, PD*, MT, and R2* at 3T: a multi-center validation. Front Neurosci 7:95. doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00095 pmid:23772204
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Wheat KL,
    2. Cornelissen PL,
    3. Frost SJ,
    4. Hansen PC
    (2010) During visual word recognition, phonology is accessed within 100 ms and may be mediated by a speech production code: evidence from magnetoencephalography. J Neurosci 30:5229–5233. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4448-09.2010 pmid:20392945
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Whitney C,
    2. Kirk M,
    3. O'Sullivan J,
    4. Lambon Ralph MA,
    5. Jefferies E
    (2011) The neural organization of semantic control: TMS evidence for a distributed network in left inferior frontal and posterior middle temporal gyrus. Cereb Cortex 21:1066–1075. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq180 pmid:20851853
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Whitworth A,
    2. Webster J,
    3. Howard D
    (2016) A cognitive neuropsychological approach to assessment and intervention in aphasia: a clinician's guide, Ed 2. Hove, UK: Psychology.
  77. ↵
    1. Woodhead ZV,
    2. Penny W,
    3. Barnes GR,
    4. Crewes H,
    5. Wise RJ,
    6. Price CJ,
    7. Leff AP
    (2013) Reading therapy strengthens top-down connectivity in patients with pure alexia. Brain 136:2579–2591. doi:10.1093/brain/awt186 pmid:23884814
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Woodhead ZV,
    2. Barnes GR,
    3. Penny W,
    4. Moran R,
    5. Teki S,
    6. Price CJ,
    7. Leff AP
    (2014) Reading front to back: MEG evidence for early feedback effects during word recognition. Cereb Cortex 24:817–825. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs365 pmid:23172772
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Woodhead ZVJ,
    2. Kerry SJ,
    3. Aguilar OM,
    4. Ong YH,
    5. Hogan JS,
    6. Pappa K,
    7. Leff AP,
    8. Crinion JT
    (2018) Randomized trial of iReadMore word reading training and brain stimulation in central alexia. Brain 141:2127–2141. doi:10.1093/brain/awy138 pmid:29912350
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Xu M,
    2. Baldauf D,
    3. Chang CQ,
    4. Desimone R,
    5. Tan LH
    (2017) Distinct Distributed patterns of neural activity are associated with two languages in the bilingual brain. Sci Adv 3:e1603309. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1603309 pmid:28706990
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Zhou W,
    2. Shu H
    (2017) A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of eye movements and visual word reading. Brain Behav 7:e00683. doi:10.1002/brb3.683 pmid:28523225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Zweig E,
    2. Pylkkänen L
    (2009) A visual M170 effect of morphological complexity. Lang Cogn Process 24:412–439. doi:10.1080/01690960802180420
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 39 (29)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 39, Issue 29
17 Jul 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How Does iReadMore Therapy Change the Reading Network of Patients with Central Alexia?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
How Does iReadMore Therapy Change the Reading Network of Patients with Central Alexia?
Sheila J. Kerry, Oscar M. Aguilar, William Penny, Jennifer T. Crinion, Alex P. Leff, Zoe V.J. Woodhead
Journal of Neuroscience 17 July 2019, 39 (29) 5719-5727; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1426-18.2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
How Does iReadMore Therapy Change the Reading Network of Patients with Central Alexia?
Sheila J. Kerry, Oscar M. Aguilar, William Penny, Jennifer T. Crinion, Alex P. Leff, Zoe V.J. Woodhead
Journal of Neuroscience 17 July 2019, 39 (29) 5719-5727; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1426-18.2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • alexia
  • aphasia
  • DCM
  • MEG
  • reading
  • stroke

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Evidence that ultrafast non-quantal transmission underlies synchronized vestibular action potential generation
  • Nfia is Critical for AII Amacrine Cell Production: Selective Bipolar Cell Dependencies and Diminished ERG
  • Multimodal Imaging for Validation and Optimization of Ion Channel-Based Chemogenetics in Nonhuman Primates
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Signatures of Electrical Stimulation Driven Network Interactions in the Human Limbic System
  • Dissociable Neural Mechanisms Underlie the Effects of Attention on Visual Appearance and Response Bias
  • Rhythmic Entrainment Echoes in Auditory Perception
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.