4.2 Article

Understanding, facilitating and predicting aphasia recovery after rehabilitation

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2075036

关键词

stroke; aphasia; rehabilitation; recovery; neuroimaging (anatomic and functional)

资金

  1. NIH/NIDCD [1R01DC016950, 1U01DC014922, 1P50DC012283]
  2. Boston University Digital Health Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviewed several studies that aimed to understand language recovery in chronic aphasia and identify predictors of recovery after brain injury. The results showed that language impairment and recovery in stroke-induced aphasia are multifactorial, influenced by patient-specific and treatment-specific factors. Combining these factors can help predict treatment responsiveness.
Purpose: This paper reviews several studies whose aim was to understand the nature of language recovery in chronic aphasia and identify predictors of how people may recover their language functions after a brain injury. Method: Several studies that mostly draw from data collected within the Centre for Neurobiology of Language Recovery were reviewed and categorised in four aspects of language impairment and recovery in aphasia: (a) neural markers for language impairment and recovery, (b) language and cognitive markers for language impairment and recovery, (c) effective treatments and (d) predictive modelling of treatment-induced rehabilitation. Result: Language impairment and recovery in stroke-induced aphasia is multi-factorial, including patient-specific and treatment-specific factors. A combination of these factors may help us predict treatment responsiveness even before treatment begins. Conclusion: Continued work on this topic will lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms that underly language impairment and treatment-induced recovery in aphasia, and, consequently, use this information to predict each person's recovery profile trajectory and provide optimal prescriptions regarding the type and dosage of treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据