This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Walker-Batson, D. Articles by Feeney, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Walker-Batson, D. Articles by Feeney, D. M. Related Collections Rehabilitation, Stroke Other Stroke Treatment - Medical

(Stroke. 2001;32:2093.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Use of Amphetamine in the Treatment of Aphasia

Delaina Walker-Batson, PhD; Sandra Curtis, MA; Rajeshwari Natarajan, PhD; Jean Ford, PhD; Nina Dronkers, PhD; Eva Salmeron, MD; Jenny Lai, MD D. Hal Unwin, MD

From The Stroke Center-Dallas, Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Texas Woman’s University (D.W.-B., S.C., J.F.), The Mobility Foundation Center and Department of Neurology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (D.W.-B., D.H.U.), and the Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University (R.N.), Dallas, Tex; the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (E.S., J.L.); and Center for Aphasia and Related Disorders, VA Northern California Health Care System (N.D.), Martinez, Calif.

Correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Delaina Walker-Batson, The Stroke Center-Dallas, Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Texas Woman’s University, 1810 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX 75235-7299.E-mail DWalkerBatson{at}twu.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
Background and Purpose—— A number of studies suggest that drugs which increase the release of norepinephrine promote recovery when administered late (days to weeks) after brain injury in animals. A small number of clinical studies have investigated the effects of the noradrenergic agonist dextroamphetamine in patients recovering from motor deficits following stroke. To determine whether these findings extend to communication deficits subsequent to stroke, we administered dextroamphetamine, paired with speech/language therapy, to patients with aphasia.

Methods—— In a prospective, double-blind study, 21 aphasic patients with an acute nonhemorrhagic infarction were randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg dextroamphetamine or a placebo. Patients were entered between days 16 and 45 after onset and were treated on a 3-day/4-day schedule for 10 sessions. Thirty minutes after drug/placebo administration, subjects received a 1-hour session of speech/language therapy. The Porch Index of Communicative Ability was used at baseline, at 1 week off the drug, and at 6 months after onset as the dependent language measure.

Results—— Although there were no differences between the drug and placebo groups before treatment (P=0.807), by 1 week after the 10 drug treatments ended there was a significant difference in gain scores between the groups (P=0.0153), with the greater gain in the dextroamphetamine group. The difference was still significant when corrected for initial aphasia severity and age. At the 6-month follow-up, the difference in gain scores between the groups had increased; however, the difference was not significant (P=0.0482) after correction for multiple comparisons.

Conclusions—— Administration of dextroamphetamine paired with 10 1-hour sessions of speech/language therapy facilitated recovery from aphasia in a small group of patients in the subacute period after stroke. Neuromodulation with dextroamphetamine, and perhaps other drugs that increase central nervous system noradrenaline levels, may facilitate recovery when paired with focused behavioral treatment.

Key Words: aphasia • cerebrovascular disorders • dextroamphetamine • stroke

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
Over the last 2 decades there have been significant advances in knowledge regarding central nervous system plasticity and recovery of function from the basic science laboratory,^1–3 yet there has been little application of this knowledge to rehabilitation methodologies. Recent investigations suggest that both timely training and lesion-induced plasticity are required for amplification of network plasticity.⁴ In addition to evidence for plasticity of the adult cortex, a growing body of literature supports the facilitating effects of certain neuropharmacological agents on recovery of function.⁵ In animals, norepinephrine in particular has been shown to enhance behavioral recovery when administered in the subacute period after injury.⁶

After experimental cortical lesions, administration of dextroamphetamine (which blocks reuptake and enhances release of norepinephrine) results in improved recovery in motor

See Editorial Comment, page 2097

function, sensorimotor integration, and binocular depth perception.^3,7,8 Dextroamphetamine-accelerated behavioral recovery has also been found to correspond to enhanced neural sprouting and synaptogenesis after experimental infarction.⁹ The dextroamphetamine-facilitated recovery is greater when drug treatment is paired with practice or training during the drug action period compared with drug administration alone.^3,8,10 The importance of norepinephrine mediation of central nervous system recovery is also supported by the fact that drugs which act as norepinephrine antagonists have reinstated motor deficits in animals¹¹ and hindered recovery from aphasia in humans.¹² The critical timing window for drug administration to facilitate recovery is not known. In a small number of animals, administration of dextroamphetamine paired with visual experience 90 days after injury did not enhance recovery of binocular depth perception.⁸

We previously reported increased rate (1 week after drug cessation) and extent (6 months’ follow-up) of recovery from hemiplegia subsequent to stroke when low-dose dextroamphetamine was paired with physical therapy during the subacute recovery period.¹³ In unblinded pilot studies,^14,15 we also found an increased rate of recovery from aphasia when low-dose dextroamphetamine was paired with speech/language therapy. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of dextroamphetamine on recovery from aphasia after stroke. The Porch Index of Communicative Abilities¹⁶ (PICA) was used as the dependent language measure. This measure was chosen because it has been shown to be a highly reliable and sensitive measure of changes in language across time. We sought to determine whether low-dose administration of dextroamphetamine paired with speech/language therapy would increase rate and/or extent of recovery from aphasia.

	Subjects and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
Twenty-one subjects (13 men and 8 women) who had a single, left, nonhemorrhagic middle cerebral artery distribution infarction participated in the study. All patients were native English speakers aged 41 to 71 years. Diagnosis was based on neurological and radiological examination. The NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS)¹⁷ was administered at entry to provide a baseline score of degree of neurological involvement. Either CT or MRI confirmed the presence of a single infarction at entry. Patients’ lesions were reconstructed onto templates and entered into a microcomputer with software developed by Frey et al¹⁸ for the calculation of lesion volume. The presence of aphasia was defined as a score of 10 to 70 points on the PICA. Subjects were entered in a consecutive manner using a stratified randomization plan¹⁹ based on severity at baseline and presence or absence of a motor component, ie, hemiplegia, oral apraxia, or apraxia of speech. Severity of aphasia was determined on the overall PICA score; patients with scores 40 were classified as having severe aphasia and those with scores between 41 and 70 as having moderate aphasia. This careful subject definition of moderate or severe aphasia was purposely established to control for severity across groups. Exclusion criteria specified that none of the subjects have a terminal medical condition such as AIDS or cancer, other coincident neurological disease, history of psychiatric illness or extensive alcohol or drug abuse, unstable cardiac dysrhythmia or uncontrolled hypertension (>160/100 mm HG), or untreated hyperthyroidism. Additionally, subjects could not be receiving -adrenergic antagonists or agonists or be aged >80 years. Patients were closely monitored in an attempt to eliminate any confounding medications during the 6-month course of the study.²⁰ Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects or their legal representatives before the study, and the research protocol was approved by the institutional review boards for human subjects at each of the participating medical centers.

Procedures
Subjects were recruited over a 4-year period of study funding in which the medical charts of approximately 850 patients were screened. Sample size was projected to be 32 patients. Subjects who met criteria for entry and consented were assigned, in blocks of 4, to either the dextroamphetamine or placebo group by the biostatistician, who used the stratification procedure described by Therneau.¹⁹ All participants, including the research investigators, clinicians, patients, and the patients’ primary-care physicians, were blinded to patient assignment to drug or placebo. A baseline PICA aphasia score was obtained 1 to 3 days before study initiation in all subjects.

Drug Administration and Speech/Language Therapy Treatment
The protocol specified that patients be entered between days 16 and 45 after stroke onset and receive an oral dose of 10 mg dextroamphetamine or placebo paired with speech/language therapy on a 3-day/4-day cycle for 10 sessions over 5 weeks. Thirty minutes after drug/placebo administration, patients started a 1-hour session of individual speech/language therapy. Each patient received equal segments of speech/language treatment in auditory comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing, with the order of treatment rotated each session. The level of treatment was initially determined by the patient’s performance on the PICA and thereafter on the previous session’s data. The speech language protocol was based on a traditional stimulation/facilitation model with a hierarchy of tasks collated from the published intervention literature.^21,22 Use of the protocol was individualized as needed to treat a patient’s specific disabilities. A patient was generally stimulated at 3 levels per modality, starting with the level at which the patient had previously attained 60% to 80% accuracy and continuing up to the highest level at which an approximate response could be obtained. Our decisions regarding task difficulty have been influenced by animal studies which suggest that brain plasticity is use dependent^23,24 and that the type of input is important. We strove for a balance between establishing an infrastructure for communication and stimulating the most complex language behaviors possible. It should be noted that because we study hemiplegia as well as aphasia, some patients also participated in physical therapy treatment. We tightly scheduled the speech/language and physical therapy to occur during the active drug period, with speech therapy always administered first. Predrug and postdrug measures of heart rate and blood pressure were documented in each session. The number of hours of direct speech/language therapy in addition to the dextroamphetamine treatment protocol was also documented.

Data Preparation
The dependent measure was the PICA. This highly reliable test has 18 subtests in the modalities of verbal, graphic, reading, and gesture, which yield an overall score expressed as a percentile. PICA overall scores were obtained at baseline, 7 days after drug sessions stopped, and again at 6 months after stroke onset for comparison between the 2 groups. For conservative comparisons between the 2 groups, we used the Bonferroni correction. In addition, we defined a 15 percentile point gain, as suggested previously by Wertz et al,²⁵ as a significant clinical difference to determine clinical change at the 1-week-off-drug assessment. Two experienced PICA administrators independently scored 20% of video taped assessments and reached 100% agreement on a point-by-point basis. Data analyses were performed with SAS, release 6.12 (SAS Institute Inc).

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
Twenty-five subjects were recruited to the study over the 4-year study period. Four subjects did not complete the study. Two were discharged during the treatment phase, 1 for nonattendance and the other for uncontrolled hypertension. One subject exhibited cognitive deficits and was discharged from the study, and 1 subject (S24 in the dextroamphetamine group) moved out of the country and could not be assessed at 6 months. The most frequently occurring reasons for patient exclusion were evidence of hemorrhagic or brain stem stroke, previous cerebral lesion with residual deficit, mild aphasia deficit, multiple medical problems, other coexisting neurological conditions, and age. Although these exclusions made recruitment difficult and no doubt accounted for the projected sample size of 32 not being achieved, we believe that this subject exclusion is essential for an initial efficacy study of this type.

Twelve subjects received dextroamphetamine and 9 received placebo. Comparisons of day of study initiation, gender, age, and baseline NIHSS and PICA overall scores revealed no significant differences between the groups (Table 1). Lesion volumes did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Within-session monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure revealed no significant fluctuations due to drug administration. In addition, at no time during the 6-month course of the study was there documentation of any negative event that could be attributed to dextroamphetamine administration.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Comparison of Baseline Characteristics Between the 2 Study Groups (n=21)

Table 2 shows individual baseline PICA overall scores with gain scores as well as aphasia type and hours of total speech language treatment, including the 10 drug/placebo sessions for the 2 groups across the study period. (Subjects are numbered consecutively whether they participated in the motor or language aspects of the protocol). Table 3 shows mean PICA overall percentile changes at the 1-week-off drug assessment and the 6-month follow-up and the number of treatment hours at 1 week off drug.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Individual PICA Overall Scores With Gain Scores at 1 Week After Treatment and 6-Month Follow-Up Plus Number of Hours of Speech/Language Therapy

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3. Main Results

While there were no differences between drug and placebo groups before treatment (P=0.807), by 1 week after the conclusion of the 10 drug/placebo sessions there was a significant difference in gain scores between the groups (P=0.0153), with the greater gain in the dextroamphetamine group. The difference (P=0.0106) was still significant when corrected for initial aphasia severity (P=0.0974) and age (P=0.2771). Additionally, at the 1-week-off-drug assessment, which was poststroke day 73 for the dextroamphetamine group and day 71 for the placebo group, 83% (10 of 12) of the dextroamphetamine subjects compared with 22% (2 of 9) of the placebo subjects had surpassed the 15 points that we had defined as a clinically significant change (P=0.0092, Fisher exact test). At the 6-month follow-up, the difference in gain scores between the groups was maintained and even increased; however, the difference was not significant (P=0.0482) after correction for multiple comparisons. There was no significant difference in the number of hours of speech/language therapy both within and outside of the drug/placebo sessions at the 1-week-off-drug assessment or at the 6-month follow-up between the 2 groups. The Figure plots the differences in PICA overall gain scores between the 2 groups at the 1-week-off-drug assessment and the 6-month follow-up.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Mean±SEM percentile change in overall PICA scores at the 1-week-off-drug assessment and the 6-month (after stroke onset) follow-up for the dextroamphetamine [AMPH] and placebo groups. The 1-week-off-drug data point was taken 1 week after the last of 10 treatment sessions given at 3- or 4- day intervals over a 5-week period. Treatment was initiated between 16 and 45 days after stroke onset.

The stratification plan appeared to be successful in allotting equally severe patients in the dextroamphetamine and placebo groups with a range of severity in terms of baseline overall PICA scores. It should be noted that this particular sample had a large number of patients with severe aphasia at baseline. In the dextroamphetamine group, 6 of 12 patients had baseline PICA scores of 30. In the placebo group, 4 of 9 subjects had baseline PICA scores of 30. In addition, at baseline there were 6 subjects in the dextroamphetamine group who showed profound or severe apraxia of speech and 2 subjects in the placebo group who had severe apraxia of speech (see Table 2).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
In this study of 21 subjects with moderate to severe aphasia deficits, administration of dextroamphetamine paired with speech/language treatment during the subacute recovery period accelerated the rate of aphasia recovery, as assessed by a reliable test of communication ability.¹⁶ One week after drug sessions ended, there was a significant difference in recovery between the groups. There was also a significant difference in the number of subjects who achieved the predetermined clinical change score of 15 points. The 16.7-point change in PICA overall score in the dextroamphetamine group with only 10 drug treatment sessions and 33 total hours of language therapy over the 5-week study period compares favorably with previous aphasia efficacy studies that used the PICA as the primary outcome measure at a similar period of study entry.²⁵ Subjects in the Veteran’s Administration Cooperative Study, who were also entered in the subacute recovery period, made an 18.2-point PICA overall change after being treated over 12 weeks and receiving between 96 and 120 hours of treatment.²⁵ These results confirm previous clinical work by ourselves^12–14 and others^26,27 of a facilitative effect of dextroamphetamine on rate of behavioral recovery after occlusive stroke.

It cannot be determined from the present study whether recovery endures after drug treatment. Although at the 6-month follow-up the numerical difference in gain scores between the groups increased, the difference was not significant when corrected for multiple comparisons. In this study we purposely chose a conservative approach to the data analysis. However, incorporating this adjustment increases the risk of not detecting an effect when an effect actually exists. The power of this study to detect differences is also limited because the sample size was smaller than projected.

The results of this study extend previous clinical findings in motor recovery to recovery from aphasia and suggest that the dextroamphetamine effect found in animal models of stroke recovery has application to human rehabilitation. When we consider the rather moderate effects of the low dose of dextroamphetamine used in this protocol in severely aphasic subjects over 10 paced dextroamphetamine sessions with 33 hours of speech/language therapy, we have to ask what more drug and more treatment might do. It is also noteworthy that patients enrolled into this dextroamphetamine protocol suffered no adverse reactions, a finding that we have previously reported.²⁸

This study is limited because of the small group of aphasic subjects and may not represent all stroke patients. However, because many of the patients we studied had severe aphasic deficits at entry, effects in this small sample would appear to be meaningful. Additionally, from this small sample it is not possible to specify whether aphasia type predicts response. In this particular group of aphasic patients, day of study initiation (up to day 45) did not determine response or nonresponse. It should be noted that this treatment is not equally effective for all deficits, a finding also observed in the animal model.²⁹ Patients with an initial apraxia of speech so severe that they had no speech output did not recover verbal ability as a means of communication, although other language areas such as writing were significantly enhanced. Larger samples to allow for greater stratification in terms of severity, types of aphasia, and age would better characterize response or nonresponse.

	Acknowledgments

 
This study was supported by National Institutes of Health grant 1 R01 DC02044. We thank Tracy Lindsay for manuscript preparation.

Received October 23, 2000; revision received June 25, 2001; accepted June 27, 2001.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
1. Easter SS, Purves D, Rakic D, Spitzer NC. The changing view of neural specificity. Science. 1985; 230: 507–510.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Juliano SL, Mapping the sensory mosaic. Science. 1998; 279: 1653–1655.[Free Full Text]

3. Feeney DM, Gonzales A, Law W. Amphetamine, haloperidol and experience interact to affect rate of recovery after motor cortex injury. Science. 1982; 217: 855–857.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Hagemann G, Redecker C, Neumann-Haefelin T, Freund HJ, Witte OW. Increased long-term potentiation in the surround of experimentally induced focal cortical infarction. Ann Neurol. 1998; 44: 225–258.

5. Goldstein LB, ed. Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery After Stroke. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Co; 1998.

6. Boyeson M, Feeney DM. Intraventricular norepinephrine facilitates motor recovery following sensorimotor cortex injury. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990; 35: 497–501.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

7. Hurwitz BE, Dietrich WD, McCabe PM, Alonson O, Watson BD. Amphetamine promotes recovery from sensory-motor integration deficit after thrombotic infarction of the primary somatosensory rat cortex. Stroke. 1991; 22: 648–654.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8. Feeney DM, Hovda DA. Reinstatement of binocular depth perception by amphetamine and visual experience after visual cortex ablation. Brain Res. 1985; 342: 352–356.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

9. Stroemer RP, Kent TA, Hulsebosch CE. Enhanced neocortical neural sprouting, synaptogenesis and behavioral recovery with d-amphetamine therapy after neocortical infarction in rats. Stroke. 1998; 29: 2381–2395.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Goldstein LB, Davis JN. Post-lesion practice and amphetamine-facilitated recovery of beam-walking in the rat. Restorative Neurol Neurosci. 1990; 1: 311–314.

11. Boyeson MG, Krobert KA, Scherer PJ, Grade CM. Reinstatement of motor deficits in recovered brain injured animals. Restorative Neurol Neurosci. 1993; 5: 283–290.

12. Porch B, Wyckes J, Feeney D. Haloperidol, thiazides and some antihypertensives slow recovery from aphasia. Soc Neurosci Abstr. 1985; 11: 52.

13. Walker-Batson D, Smith P, Curtis S, Unwin H, Greenlee RG. Amphetamine paired with physical therapy accelerates recovery from stroke: further evidence. Stroke. 1995; 26: 2254–2259.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

14. Walker-Batson D, Unwin H, Curtis S, Allen E, Wood M, Smith P, Devous MD, Reynolds S, Greenlee RG. Use of amphetamine in the treatment of aphasia. Restorative Neurol Neurosci. 1992; 4: 47–50.

15. Walker-Batson D. Pharmacotherapy in the treatment of aphasia.In: Goldstein LB, ed. Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery After Stroke. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Co; 1998.

16. Porch B. The Porch Index of Communicative Abilities. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1982.

17. Brott T, Adams HP, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, Spilker J, Holleran R, Eberle R, Hertzberg V, Rorick M, Moomaw CJ, Walker M. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989; 20: 864–870.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18. Frey RT, Woods DL, Knight R, Scabini D, Clayworth C. Defining functional areas with averaged CT scans. Soc Neurosci Abstr. 1987; 13: 1266.

19. Therneau TM. How many stratification factors are "too many" to use in a randomization plan? Control Clin Trials. 1993; 14: 98–108.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

20. Goldstein LB, Matchar DB, Morgenlander JC, Davis JN. The influence of drugs on the recovery of sensorimotor function after stroke. J Neurol Rehabil. 1990; 4: 137–144.

21. Shewan CM, Bandur DL. Treatment of Aphasia: A Language Oriented Approach. Boston, Mass: College Hill Press; 1986.

22. Rosenbek J, LaPoint L, Wertz R. Aphasia: A Clinical Approach. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown & Co; 1989.

23. Merzenich MM, Kaas JH, Wall J, Nelson RJ, Sur M, Felleman D. Topographic reorganization of somatosensory cortical areas 3B and 1 in adult monkeys following restricted deafferentation. Neuroscience. 1983; 8: 33–55.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

24. Merzenich MM, Nelson RJ, Stryker JP, Cynader MS, Schoeppman A, Zook JM. Somatosensory cortical map changes following digit amputation in adult monkeys. J Comp Neurol. 1984; 224: 591–605.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

25. Wertz RT, Weiss DG, Aten JL, Brookshire R, Garcia-Bunuel L, Holland A, Kurtzke J, LaPointe L, Milianti F, Brannegan R, Greenbaum H, Marshall R, Vogel D, Carter J, Barnes N, Goodman R. Comparison of clinic, home, and deferred language treatment for aphasia. Arch Neurol. 1986; 48: 653–658.

26. Benson DF. Presentation 10.In: Benton AL, ed. Behavioral Change in Cerebrovascular Disease. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1970: 77.

27. Crisostomo EA, Duncan PW, Propst MA, Dawson DV, Davis JN. Evidence that amphetamine with physical therapy promotes recovery of motor function in stroke patients. Ann Neurol. 1988; 23: 94–97.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

28. Unwin H, Walker-Batson D. Negligible side effects of amphetamine administration in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2000; 31: 1788–1789.

29. Schmanke TD, Avery RA, Barth TM. The effects of amphetamine on recovery of function after cortical damage in the rat depends on the behavioral requirements of the task. J Neurotrauma. 1996; 13: 293–307.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Editorial Comment

Dennis M. Feeney, PhD; Guest Editor

	Changing Foundations of Speech Therapy

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
The occasional shifts of scientific thought may appear capricious. The foundation for some changes are likely difficult to observe and perhaps impossible to understand. Others may be straightforward. Broca’s report of a few cases of aphasia had remarkable consequences, initiating the study of brain function. While there had been descriptions of language deficits associated with left hemisphere lesions, they were not generally accepted. The idea of the cortex "acting as a whole" was the dominant interpretation of cortical organization. Broca’s conclusion, that the third frontal convolution was the critical center for the "faculty for articulate language," required a change to localization of function in cortex. According to Henry Head, "These communications produced the greatest excitement in the medical world of Paris."¹

Recently, a marked change of expectations regarding the potential of neurorehabilitation changed from pessimism to enthusiasm regarding both physical therapy (PT) and speech therapy (ST). In part this reflects the later times post-injury when experimental interventions are reportedly effective. Also, the acceptance by the rehabilitation team that laboratory work using animals may have implications for the treatment of aphasia represents a major change in attitude. The series of studies² by the Dallas group, Walker-Batson and her colleagues, began by extending laboratory findings that recovery from hemiplegia can be enhanced to a higher outcome level by combining noradrenergic agonists with PT in rat or cat.² This combination approach has been described as a "new frontier"³ that "holds considerable promise."⁴ The use of pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to PT and ST is not new. Earlier investigations, including Sciclounoff in 1934 and Luria in the 1940s, described the efficacy on outcome of cholinergic drugs combined with PT and ST (reviewed in Reference ⁵).

While the study of the relation between aphasia and areas of cortical injury originated over a century ago, the attempted treatment of aphasia has a surprisingly short history. The study considered the first investigation of "treatment efficacy" in ST used a no-treatment control group and was published in 1964 (discussed in Reference ⁶ [page 31]). Unlike other health care specialties, ST was founded on educational principles, "the aphasic patient was to be taught language just as a child is taught."⁶ Only in the 1970s were outcome studies begun and reviews of the few controlled experiments describe the results as "unimpressive."⁷ The recent review and analysis by the Cochran group⁸ of the controlled studies on the efficacy of ST summarized this outcome literature as "not been shown either to be clearly effective or clearly ineffective." Given this background, the studies by Walker-Batson and colleagues are unique compared to those typically conducted on the efficacy of rehabilitation treatments a decade earlier.

The biomedical sciences increasingly recognize the need for statistical analysis to determine the possibility that an observed difference was due to chance. The use of multiple measurements presents the opposite problem: Conduct enough significance tests and some will be significant by chance.⁹ The Bonferroni correction is one of several methods used to maintain the alpha level at 0.05 when multiple significance tests are conducted. By consensus, the alpha level is set at 0.05, accepting the risk of 1 in 20 that statistical tests may give a "significant" difference by chance. If 5 tests are computed, the chance of 1 being significant due to chance is 0.20. Using the Bonferroni correction, the alpha level of each individual test is adjusted downward to ensure that the overall risk for a number of tests remains at 0.05. A problem results from collecting multiple measures, as the adjustment of the alpha level will make it more difficult to reach significance. The Bonferroni correction has been the subject of considerable controversy.^9,10 An important problem is the absence of consistency in the use of such adjustments within the same journal and for similar studies. To illustrate this inconsistency, compare the current study by Walker-Batson et al to the quite similar study of the effect of piracetam on aphasia recovery published in Stroke.¹¹ The current study required only t tests to compare 2 groups at 2 time points; however, a reviewer requested the use of the Bonferroni to adjust the alpha level. The piracetam study¹¹ included calculation of more than 17 significance tests of the aphasia and neuropsychological tests, and they do not report any alpha level adjustment. The study also included significance tests of treatment-induced rCBF changes measured by PET scans. How to adjust for multiple comparisons in such measures and how these significance tests should be counted when adjusting the alpha level requires a separate discussion. I am not suggesting that alpha-level adjustments using the Bonferroni or other methods are appropriate; rather, Stroke should take a lead and adopt a consistent policy on these issues.

The major difficulty in conducting studies such as this by Walker-Batson et al is often not appreciated. To locate, test, and follow up the 21 subjects used in this study required 4 years of patient recruitment. As noted in a review of ST efficacy,⁶ patient recruitment is a general problem for these studies and helps explain why so few studies are conducted. For some areas within neuroscience, after 4 years the original hypothesis may no longer be of any interest.

Department of Psychology and Neurosciences

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References Changing Foundations of Speech... References

 
1. Finger S, Stein DG. Brain Damage and Recovery. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press; 1982.

2. Feeney DM. From laboratory to clinic: noradrenergic enhancement of physical therapy for stroke or trauma patients.In: Freund H-J, Sabel BA, Witte OW, eds. Brain Plasticity: Advances in Neurology. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1997; 73: 383–394.

3. Gladstone DJ, Black SE. Enhancing recovery after stroke with noradrenergic pharmacotherapy: a new frontier? Can J Neurol Sci. 2000; 27: 97–105.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

4. Rothi LJG, Nadeau SE, Ennis MR. Aphasia treatment: a key issue for research into the twenty-first century. Brain Lang. 2000; 71: 78–81.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

5. Feeney DM, Sutton RL. Pharmacotherapy for recovery of function after brain injury. Crit Rev Neurobiol. 1987; 3: 135–197.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

6. Shewan C. History and efficacy of aphasia treatment.In: Chapey R, ed. Language Intervention Strategies in Adult Aphasia. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1986.

7. Selzer ME Neuroscience and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 1994; 7: 507–509.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

8. Greener J, Enderby P, Whurr R. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke (Cochrane review).In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2001. Oxford, UK: Update Software.

9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ. 1995, 310: 170.[Free Full Text]

10. Perneger T. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ. 1998; 316: 1236–1238.[Free Full Text]

11. Kessler J, Thiel AJ, Karbe H, Heiss WD. Piracetam improves activated blood flow and facilitates rehabilitation of poststroke aphasic patients. Stroke. 2000; 31: 2112–2116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. M. Raymer, P. Beeson, A. Holland, D. Kendall, L. M. Maher, N. Martin, L. Murray, M. Rose, C. K. Thompson, L. Turkstra, et al. Translational Research in Aphasia: From Neuroscience to Neurorehabilitation J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2008; 51(1): S259 - S275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Hillis Aphasia: Progress in the last quarter of a century Neurology, July 10, 2007; 69(2): 200 - 213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Bullain, L. S. Chriki, and T. A. Stern Aphasia: Associated Disturbances in Affect, Behavior, and Cognition in the Setting of Speech and Language Difficulties Psychosomatics, June 1, 2007; 48(3): 258 - 264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Meintzschel and U. Ziemann Modification of Practice-dependent Plasticity in Human Motor Cortex by Neuromodulators Cereb Cortex, August 1, 2006; 16(8): 1106 - 1115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Gladstone, C. J. Danells, A. Armesto, W. E. McIlroy, W. R. Staines, S. J. Graham, N. Herrmann, J. P. Szalai, S. E. Black, and for the Subacute Therapy with Amphetamine and Reha Physiotherapy Coupled With Dextroamphetamine for Rehabilitation After Hemiparetic Stroke: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Stroke, January 1, 2006; 37(1): 179 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Briand, T. E. Robinson, and S. Maren Enhancement of auditory fear conditioning after housing in a complex environment is attenuated by prior treatment with amphetamine Learn. Mem., November 1, 2005; 12(6): 553 - 556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. W. Duncan, R. Zorowitz, B. Bates, J. Y. Choi, J. J. Glasberg, G. D. Graham, R. C. Katz, K. Lamberty, and D. Reker Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: A Clinical Practice Guideline Stroke, September 1, 2005; 36(9): e100 - e143. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Chatterjee Cosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood Neurology, September 28, 2004; 63(6): 968 - 974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-K. Lee, J.-E. Kim, M. Sivula, and S. M. Strittmatter Nogo Receptor Antagonism Promotes Stroke Recovery by Enhancing Axonal Plasticity J. Neurosci., July 7, 2004; 24(27): 6209 - 6217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Drubach, M. Makley, and M. L. Dodd Manipulation of Central Nervous System Plasticity: A New Dimension in the Care of Neurologically Impaired Patients Mayo Clin. Proc., June 1, 2004; 79(6): 796 - 800. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Long and J. Young Dexamphetamine treatment in stroke QJM, September 1, 2003; 96(9): 673 - 685. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L Ruhland and P. L. van Kan Medial Pontine Hemorrhagic Stroke Physical Therapy, June 1, 2003; 83(6): 552 - 566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Marshall, T. Rundek, D. M. Sproule, B.-F. M. Fitzsimmons, S. Schwartz, and R. M. Lazar Monitoring of Cerebral Vasodilatory Capacity With Transcranial Doppler Carbon Dioxide Inhalation in Patients With Severe Carotid Artery Disease Stroke, April 1, 2003; 34(4): 945 - 949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Bhogal, R. Teasell, M. Speechley, and M. L. Albert Intensity of Aphasia Therapy, Impact on Recovery * Aphasia Therapy Works! Stroke, April 1, 2003; 34(4): 987 - 993. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Martinsson and N. G. Wahlgren Safety of Dexamphetamine in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Dose-Escalation Trial Stroke, February 1, 2003; 34(2): 475 - 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Gladstone, S. E. Black, and A. M. Hakim Toward Wisdom From Failure: Lessons From Neuroprotective Stroke Trials and New Therapeutic Directions Stroke, August 1, 2002; 33(8): 2123 - 2136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Altieri, V. Di Piero, G. L. Lenzi, D. Walker-Batson, S. Curtis, and D. H. Unwin Drugs and Recovery: A Challenge for a Few? Stroke, April 1, 2002; 33(4): 1170 - 1170. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Walker-Batson, D. Articles by Feeney, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Walker-Batson, D. Articles by Feeney, D. M. Related Collections Rehabilitation, Stroke Other Stroke Treatment - Medical