Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Neural Plasticity
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 2761913, 16 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2761913
Research Article

The Cognitive Neuroplasticity of Reading Recovery following Chronic Stroke: A Representational Similarity Analysis Approach

1Department of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
2Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Simon Fischer-Baum

Received 7 June 2016; Accepted 12 December 2016; Published 8 February 2017

Academic Editor: Swathi Kiran

Copyright © 2017 Simon Fischer-Baum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. A. Fiez and S. E. Petersen, “Neuroimaging studies of word reading,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 914–921, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. C. J. Price, “A review and synthesis of the first 20years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading,” NeuroImage, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 816–847, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. P. E. Turkeltaub, G. F. Eden, K. M. Jones, and T. A. Zeffiro, “Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: method and validation,” NeuroImage, vol. 16, no. 3 I, pp. 765–780, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. Dehaene and L. Cohen, “The unique role of the visual word form area in reading,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 254–262, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. N. Geschwind, “Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man,” Brain, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 585–644, 1965. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. L. E. Philipose, R. F. Gottesman, M. Newhart et al., “Neural regions essential for reading and spelling of words and pseudowords,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 481–492, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. E. Hillis, M. Newhart, J. Heidler, P. Barker, E. Herskovits, and M. Degaonkar, “The roles of the ‘visual word form area’ in reading,” NeuroImage, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 548–559, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Sebastian, Y. Gomez, R. Leigh, C. Davis, M. Newhart, and A. E. Hillis, “The roles of occipitotemporal cortex in reading, spelling, and naming,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 31, no. 5-6, pp. 511–528, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. P. M. Beeson, J. G. Magloire, and R. R. Robey, “Letter-by-letter reading: natural recovery and response to treatment,” Behavioural Neurology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 191–202, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. Behrmann, S. E. Black, and D. Bub, “The evolution of pure alexia: a longitudinal study of recovery,” Brain and Language, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 405–427, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. B. Friedman and M. P. Alexander, “Pictures, images, and pure alexia: a case study,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–23, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. C. Henry, R. Gaillard, E. Volle et al., “Brain activations during letter-by-letter reading: A Follow-up Study,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 43, no. 14, pp. 1983–1989, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. T. Ino, K. Tokumoto, K. Usami, T. Kimura, Y. Hashimoto, and H. Fukuyama, “Longitudinal fMRI study of reading in a patient with letter-by-letter reading,” Cortex, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 773–781, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. L. Seghier, N. H. Neufeld, P. Zeidman et al., “Reading without the left ventral occipito-temporal cortex,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 50, no. 14, pp. 3621–3635, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. K. Tsapkini, M. Vindiola, and B. Rapp, “Patterns of brain reorganization subsequent to left fusiform damage: FMRI evidence from visual processing of words and pseudowords, faces and objects,” NeuroImage, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1357–1372, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. L. Cohen, C. Henry, S. Dehaene et al., “The pathophysiology of letter-by-letter reading,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 42, no. 13, pp. 1768–1780, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. Grafman, “Conceptualizing functional neuroplasticity,” Journal of Communication Disorders, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 345–356, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. C. K. Thompson and D.-B. D. Ouden, “Neuroimaging and recovery of language in aphasia,” Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 475–483, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. S.-B. Pyun, H.-J. Sohn, J.-B. Jung, and K. Nam, “Differential reorganization of fusiform gyrus in two types of Alexia after stroke,” Neurocase, vol. 13, no. 5-6, pp. 417–425, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. E. M. Saffran and H. B. Coslett, “Implicit vs. letter-by-letter reading in pure alexia: a tale of two systems,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 15, no. 1-2, pp. 141–165, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. Miozzo and A. Caramazza, “Varieties of pure alexia: the case of failure to access graphemic representations,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 15, no. 1-2, pp. 203–238, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. E. Hillis, “The right place at the right time?” Brain, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 1351–1353, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. D. Saur, R. Lange, A. Baumgaertner et al., “Dynamics of language reorganization after stroke,” Brain, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 1371–1384, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. S. Fischer-Baum, E. Tamez, and D. Li, Levels of Representation During Single Word Reading: Evidence from Representation Similarity Analysis, Society for the Neurobiology of Language, Chicago, Ill, USA, 2015.
  25. P. E. Turkeltaub, S. Messing, C. Norise, and R. H. Hamilton, “Are networks for residual language function and recovery consistent across aphasic patients?” Neurology, vol. 76, no. 20, pp. 1726–1734, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. A. Naeser, P. I. Martin, M. Nicholas et al., “Improved picture naming in chronic aphasia after TMS to part of right Broca's area: an open-protocol study,” Brain and Language, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 95–105, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. P. E. Turkeltaub, H. B. Coslett, A. L. Thomas et al., “The right hemisphere is not unitary in its role in aphasia recovery,” Cortex, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1179–1186, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. T. Barlow, “On a case of double hemiplegia, with cerebral symmetrical lesions,” British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 865, pp. 103–104, 1877. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. Basso, M. Gardelli, M. P. Grassi, and M. Mariotti, “The role of the right hemisphere in recovery from aphasia. Two case studies,” Cortex, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 555–566, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. P. Bartolomeo, A.-C. Bachoud-Lévi, B. De Gelder et al., “Multiple-domain dissociation between impaired visual perception and preserved mental imagery in a patient with bilateral extrastriate lesions,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 239–249, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. N. Kriegeskorte, M. Mur, and P. Bandettini, “Representational similarity analysis—connecting the branches of systems neuroscience,” Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, vol. 2, article 4, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. D. Rothlein and B. Rapp, “The similarity structure of distributed neural responses reveals the multiple representations of letters,” NeuroImage, vol. 89, pp. 331–344, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. Howard, “Reading without letters?” in The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Language, M. Coltheart, G. Sartori, and R. Job, Eds., pp. 27–58, Lawrence Erlbaum, London, UK, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  34. R. Brunsdon, M. Coltheart, and L. Nickels, “Severe developmental letter-processing impairment: a treatment case study,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 795–821, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. T. T. Schnur, M. F. Schwartz, D. Y. Kimberg, E. Hirshorn, H. B. Coslett, and S. L. Thompson-Schill, “Localizing interference during naming: convergent neuroimaging and neuropsychological evidence for the function of Broca's area,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 322–327, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. B. B. Avants, P. T. Schoenemann, and J. C. Gee, “Lagrangian frame diffeomorphic image registration: morphometric comparison of human and chimpanzee cortex,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 397–412, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. C. J. Holmes, R. Hoge, L. Collins, R. Woods, A. W. Toga, and A. C. Evans, “Enhancement of MR images using registration for signal averaging,” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 324–333, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. N. Tzourio-Mazoyer, B. Landeau, D. Papathanassiou et al., “Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain,” NeuroImage, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 273–289, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. H. R. Dial, B. Tomkins, and R. Martin, “Shared perceptual processes in phoneme and word perception: evidence from aphasia,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting, Frontiers in Psychology, Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. R. C. Martin, M. F. Lesch, and M. C. Bartha, “Independence of input and output phonology in word processing and short-term memory,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 3–29, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. A. Roach, M. F. Schwartz, N. Martin, R. S. Grewal, and A. Brecher, “The Philadelphia naming test: scoring and rationale,” Clinical Aphasiology, vol. 24, pp. 121–134, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  42. D. Howard and K. E. Patterson, The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test: A Test of Semantic Access from Words and Pictures, Thames Valley Test Company, 1992.
  43. T. Schubert and M. McCloskey, “Prelexical representations and processes in reading: evidence from acquired dyslexia,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 360–395, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. T. Schubert and M. McCloskey, “Recognition of oral spelling is diagnostic of the central reading processes,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 80–88, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. R. Goodman and A. Caramazza, The Johns Hopkins Dyslexia Battery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA, 1986.
  46. A. E. Hillis and A. Caramazza, “Converging evidence for the interaction of semantic and sublexical phonological information in accessing lexical representations for spoken output,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 187–227, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. T. A. Polk and M. Farah, “Functional MRI evidence for an abstract, not perceptual, word-form area,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. A. Caramazza and A. E. Hillis, “Levels of representation, co-ordinate frames, and unilateral neglect,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 7, no. 5-6, pp. 391–445, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. D. Besner, M. Coltheart, and E. Davelaar, “Basic processes in reading: computation of abstract letter identities,” Canadian Journal of Psychology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 126–134, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. J. Grainger and J. C. Ziegler, “A dual-route approach to orthographic processing,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 2, article 54, pp. 1–13, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. J. Dejerine, “Sur un cas de cecite verbale avec agraphie,” Memoires Societe Biologique, vol. 3, pp. 197–201, 1891. View at Google Scholar
  52. C. Whitney, “Comparison of the SERIOL and SOLAR theories of letter-position encoding,” Brain and Language, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 170–178, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. S. Dehaene, L. Cohen, M. Sigman, and F. Vinckier, “The neural code for written words: a proposal,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 335–341, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. J. R. Crawford and D. C. Howell, “Comparing an individual's test score against norms derived from small samples,” Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 482–486, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. L. Cohen and S. Dehaene, “Specialization within the ventral stream: the case for the visual word form area,” NeuroImage, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 466–476, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. A. C. Vogel, S. E. Petersen, and B. L. Schlaggar, “The left occipitotemporal cortex does not show preferential activity for words,” Cerebral Cortex, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2715–2732, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. C. Rorden and M. Brett, “Stereotaxic display of brain lesions,” Behavioural Neurology, vol. 12, no. 4, Article ID 421719, pp. 191–200, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. W. A. Postman-Caucheteux, R. M. Birn, R. H. Pursley et al., “Single-trial fMRI shows contralesional activity linked to overt naming errors in chronic aphasic patients,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1299–1318, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. R. Cabeza, “Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: the HAROLD model,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 85–100, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. K. A. Norman, S. M. Polyn, G. J. Detre, and J. V. Haxby, “Beyond mind-reading: multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 424–430, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. R. D. S. Raizada and N. Kriegeskorte, “Pattern-information fMRI: new questions which it opens up and challenges which face it,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 31–41, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. F. Pereira, T. Mitchell, and M. Botvinick, “Machine learning classifiers and fMRI: a tutorial overview,” NeuroImage, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. S199–S209, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. J. V. Haxby, A. C. Connolly, and J. S. Guntupalli, “Decoding neural representational spaces using multivariate pattern analysis,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 37, pp. 435–456, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. G. M. Reicher, “Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 275–280, 1969. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. D. D. Wheeler, “Processes in word recognition,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 59–85, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus