Background Understanding the relationships between clinical tests, the processes they measure, and the brain networks underlying them, is critical in order for clinicians to move beyond aphasia syndrome classification toward specification of individual language process impairments. Objective To understand the cognitive, language, and neuroanatomical factors underlying scores of commonly used aphasia tests. Methods 25 behavioral tests were administered to a group of 38 chronic left hemisphere stroke survivors and a high resolution MRI was obtained. Test scores were entered into a principal components analysis to extract the latent variables (factors) measured by the tests. Multivariate lesion-symptom mapping was used to localize lesions associated with the factor scores. Results The principal components analysis yielded four dissociable factors, which we labeled Word Finding/Fluency, Comprehension, Phonology/Working Memory Capacity, and Executive Function. While many tests loaded onto the factors in predictable ways, some relied heavily on factors not commonly associated with the tests. Lesion symptom mapping demonstrated discrete brain structures associated with each factor, including frontal, temporal, and parietal areas extending beyond the classical language network. Specific functions mapped onto brain anatomy largely in correspondence with modern neural models of language processing. Conclusions An extensive clinical aphasia assessment identifies four independent language functions, relying on discrete parts of the left middle cerebral artery territory. A better understanding of the processes underlying cognitive tests and the link between lesion and behavior may lead to improved aphasia diagnosis, and may yield treatments better targeted to an individual’s specific pattern of deficits and preserved abilities.

Reading involves the rapid extraction of sound and meaning from print through a cooperative division of labor between phonological and lexical-semantic processes. Whereas lesion studies of patients with stereotyped acquired reading deficits contributed to the notion of a dissociation between phonological and lexical-semantic reading, the neuroanatomical basis for effects of lexicality (word vs pseudoword), orthographic regularity (regular vs irregular spelling-sound correspondences), and concreteness (concrete vs abstract meaning)on reading is underspecified, particularly outside the context of strong behavioral dissociations. Support vector regression lesionsymptom mapping (LSM) of 73 left hemisphere stroke survivors (male and female human subjects) not preselected for stereotyped dissociations revealed the differential contributions of specific cortical regions to reading pseudowords (ventral precentral gyrus), regular words (planum temporale, supramarginal gyrus, ventral precentral and postcentral gyrus, and insula), and concrete words (pars orbitalis and pars triangularis). Consistent with the primary systems view of reading being parasitic on language-general circuitry, our multivariate LSM analyses revealed that phonological decoding depends on perisylvian areas subserving sound-motor integration and that semantic effects on reading depend on frontal cortex subserving control over concrete semantic representations that aid phonological access from print. As the first study to localize the differential cortical contributions to reading pseudowords, regular words, and concrete words in stroke survivors with variable reading abilities, our results provide important information on the neurobiological basis of reading and highlight the insights attainable through multivariate, process-based approaches to alexia. Whereas fMRI evidence for neuroanatomical dissociations between phonological and lexical-semantic reading is abundant, evidence from modern lesion studies establishing the differential contributions of specific brain regions to specific reading processes is lacking. Our application of multivariate lesion-symptom mapping revealed that effects of lexicality, orthographic regularity, and concreteness on reading differentially depend on areas subserving auditory-motor integration and semantic control. Phonological decoding of print relies on a dorsal perisylvian network supporting auditory and articulatory representations, with unfamiliar words relying especially on articulatory mapping. In tandem with this dorsal decoding system, anterior inferior frontal gyrus may coordinate control over concrete semantic representations that support mapping of print to sound, which is a novel potential mechanism for semantic influences on reading.

Many individuals with aphasia describe anomia with comments like “I know it but I can’t say it.” The exact meaning of such phrases is unclear. We hypothesize that at least two discrete experiences exist: the sense of (1) knowing a concept, but failing to find the right word, and (2) saying the correct word internally but not aloud (successful inner speech, sIS). We propose that sIS reflects successful lexical access; subsequent overt anomia indicates post-lexical output deficits. In this pilot study, we probed the subjective experience of anomia in 37 persons with aphasia. Self-reported sIS related to aphasia severity and phonological output deficits. In multivariate lesion-symptom mapping, sIS was associated with dorsal stream lesions, particularly in ventral sensorimotor cortex. These preliminary results suggest that people with aphasia can often provide meaningful insights about their experience of anomia and that reports of sIS relate to specific lesion locations and language deficits.

Background Individuals with aphasia often receive therapy from a speech-language pathologist during acute rehabilitation. The literature demonstrates that group-based therapy provides a natural, social environment for language rehabilitation in mild-moderate and/or chronic aphasia; however, the communication of persons with acute, severe non-fluent aphasia during group treatment has not been fully explored. Objective This observational study investigated patient communication during acute rehabilitation. The primary objective was to determine whether participants initiate more communication during group therapy sessions when compared to individual therapy sessions. Method Ten participants with severe non-fluent aphasia were observed during one individual and one group session during their stay in an acute, inpatient rehabilitation facility. Communicative initiations were tallied and categorized based on type, target, and purpose. Results Participants initiated communication more often during group sessions than during individual sessions. During groups, participants used more vocalizations and facial expressions to communicate, and the purpose was more often for social closeness than in individual sessions. Participants produced fewer different, real words in group vs. individual sessions, but other measures of communication skill did not differ significantly between the two settings. Conclusion In the aphasia group treatment described in this study, participants initiated more communication, with greater diversity of expressive modalities and more varied communicative purposes. Participants in group therapy also showed an increased tendency to communicate for the purpose of social closeness. These findings suggest that there are important differences in the communication of patients participating in group vs. individual speech therapy for treatment of acute, severe non-fluent aphasia.