Comparing the brain–behaviour relationship in acute and chronic stroke aphasia

Abstract

AbstractIn stroke aphasia, lesion volume is typically associated with aphasia severity. Although this relationship is likely present throughout recovery, different factors may affect lesion volume and behaviour early into recovery (acute) and in the later stages of recovery (chronic). Therefore, studies typically separate patients into two groups (acute/chronic), and this is often accompanied with arguments for and against using data from acute stroke patients over chronic. However, no comprehensive studies have provided strong evidence of whether the lesion–behaviour relationship early in recovery is comparable to later in the recovery trajectory. To that end, we investigated two aims: (i) whether lesion data from acute and chronic patients yield similar results in region-based lesion-symptom mapping analyses and (ii) if models based on one timepoint accurately predict the other. Lesions and aphasia severity scores from acute (N = 63) and chronic (N = 109) stroke survivors with aphasia were entered into separate univariate region-based lesion-symptom mapping analyses. A support vector regression model was trained on lesion data from either the acute or chronic data set to give an estimate of aphasia severity. Four model-based analyses were conducted: trained on acute/chronic using leave-one-out, tested on left-out behaviour or trained on acute/chronic to predict the other timepoint. Region-based lesion-symptom mapping analyses identified similar but not identical regions in both timepoints. All four models revealed positive correlations between actual and predicted Western Aphasia Battery-Revised aphasia-quotient scores. Lesion-to-behaviour predictions were almost equivalent when comparing within versus across stroke stage, despite differing lesion size/locations and distributions of aphasia severity between stroke timepoints. This suggests that research investigating the brain–behaviour relationship including subsets of patients from only one timepoint may also be applicable at other timepoints, although it is important to note that these comparable findings may only be seen using broad measures such as aphasia severity, rather than those aimed at identifying more specific deficits. Subtle differences found between timepoints may also be useful in understanding the nature of lesion volume and aphasia severity over time. Stronger correlations found when predicting acute behaviour (e.g. predicting acute: r = 0.6888, P < 0.001, predicting chronic r = 0.5014, P < 0.001) suggest that the acute lesion/perfusion patterns more accurately capture the critical changes in underlying vascular territories. Differences in critical brain regions between timepoints may shed light on recovery patterns. Future studies could focus on a longitudinal design to compare acute and chronic patients in a more controlled manner.