首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Human Neuroscience >Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in the Treatment of Post-stroke and Neurodegenerative Aphasia: Parallels Differences and Lessons Learned
【2h】

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in the Treatment of Post-stroke and Neurodegenerative Aphasia: Parallels Differences and Lessons Learned

机译:无创性脑刺激治疗中风后和神经退行性失语症:平行差异和经验教训。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:十多年的大量研究表明,无创性脑刺激(NIBS)技术,即经颅磁刺激(TMS)和经颅直流电刺激(tDCS),可以促进失语症患者的语言恢复由于中风。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原因(统称为原发性进行性失语症)被越来越多地视为痴呆症的重要临床表型。现在非常有限的数据表明(NIBS)在治疗PPA方面可能有一些益处。但是,在对PPA患者应用与先前在中风后失语症患者中所采用的相同方法之前,对于研究者而言,重要的是考虑这些失语症病因之间的关键相似点和差异,这很可能会为成功的刺激方法提供参考。虽然中风后失语症和PPA在临床现象上有明显的重叠,但与这两种病因相关的损伤机制和理论上的神经增生性改变却截然不同。重要的是,中风后失语症的可塑性理论主要是基于这样的观念,即以前不参与语言处理的大脑区域可能会起新的补偿作用。但是,PPA的特征是语言系统中的单元缓慢分布的退化。目前尚不了解大脑区域的补偿性募集以保留语言是该病的重要方面。这篇综述将调查两种失语症病因之间语言表达机制的差异,并评估可能定义和限制针对这两种疾病的不同神经调节方法的成功的特性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号