Reply: Are recovery of fluency and recovery of phonology antagonistic?
Reply: Are recovery of fluency and recovery of phonology antagonistic?
复制标题
答：流利度的恢复和音韵的恢复是对立的吗？
DOI：
10.1093/brain/awad027
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lambon Ralph MA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lambon Ralph MA
鉴于迫切需要了解中风后失语症的语言恢复机制，我们很高兴步行者和Hickok 1在我们最近的探索中所表现出的兴趣。他们的热情和勤奋的特点是，他们的信的标题和重点与一项补充初步调查结果有关（在补充材料中报告）。我们将在下面讨论他们对这一具体发现的观察，但这一领域更广泛的现状和这项研究的主要发现可能更为重要。尽管绘制和理解中风后失语症的语言恢复变量的重要性，目前的文献是由一个“双重缺乏”的特点：（i）只有少数纵向组研究的语言恢复从急性/亚急性期结合联合收割机详细的神经心理学和功能磁共振成像证据。那些确实存在的方法严重偏向于最温和的患者，2无疑反映出这种形式的纵向患者跟踪在后勤上具有挑战性，并且很难招募急性期中度至重度受损的患者。并行;（ii）虽然口头描述的语言恢复的想法可以追溯到开创性的19世纪世纪失语症的研究，有一个明显缺乏正式的，理想的计算实现，帐户的神经认知机制，可能会支持恢复过程。3我们希望，我们的研究代表了对关于恢复的小知识库的贡献，但还需要更多。同样，该领域将受益于更多数量和范围的失语症计算模型和可能支持恢复的机制（例如Ueno et al. 4），以及患者启发的实验模型，这些模型可以从健康参与者的脑刺激与功能性MRI相结合中获得。5
Given the urgent and pressing need to understand language recovery mechanisms in post-stroke aphasia, we were delighted in the interest taken by Walker and Hickok 1 in our recent exploration. Their enthusiasm and diligence are marked by the fact that the title and focus of their Letter pertains to one of the additional preliminary findings (reported in the Supplementary material). We will discuss their observations on that specific finding below, but the broader state-of-play in this field and the major findings from the study are perhaps even more important. Despite the importance of plotting and understanding variable language recovery in poststroke aphasia, the current literature is marked by a ‘double dearth’:(i) there are only a handful of longitudinal group studies of language recovery from the acute/subacute phase that combine detailed neuropsychological and functional MRI evidence. Those that do exist are heavily biased towards the mildest patients, 2 undoubtedly reflecting that this form of longitudinal patient tracking is logistically challenging, and it is difficult to recruit moderate-to-severely impaired patients in the acute phase. In parallel;(ii) whilst verbally described ideas about language recovery can be traced back to the seminal 19th century aphasiological studies, there is a distinct lack of formal, ideally computationally-implemented, accounts of the neurocognitive mechanisms that might underpin recovery processes. 3 Our study represents, we hope, a contribution to the small knowledge base on recovery but much more is needed. Similarly, the field will benefit from a greater number and range of computationally-implemented models of aphasia and the mechanisms that may underpin recovery (eg Ueno et al. 4), as well as patient-inspired experimental models that can be derived from combining brain stimulation with functional MRI in healthy participants. 5