Online transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals differential effects of transitivity in left inferior parietal cortex but not premotor cortex during action naming

Picture naming test through the prism of cognitive neuroscience and linguistics: adapting the test for cerebellar tumor survivors-or pouring new wine in old sacks?

A picture naming test (PNT) has long been regarded as an integral part of neuropsychological assessment. In current research and clinical practice, it serves a variety of purposes. PNTs are used to assess the severity of speech impairment in aphasia, monitor possible cognitive decline in aging patients with or without age-related neurodegenerative disorders, track language development in children and map eloquent brain areas to be spared during surgery. In research settings, picture naming tests provide an insight into the process of lexical retrieval in monolingual and bilingual speakers. However, while numerous advances have occurred in linguistics and neuroscience since the classic, most widespread PNTs were developed, few of them have found their way into test design. Consequently, despite the popularity of PNTs in clinical and research practice, their relevance and objectivity remain questionable. The present study provides an overview of literature where relevant criticisms and concerns have been expressed over the recent decades. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between conventional test design and the current understanding of the mechanisms underlying lexical retrieval by focusing on the parameters that have been experimentally proven to influence picture naming. We discuss here the implications of these findings for improving and facilitating test design within the picture naming paradigm. Subsequently, we highlight the importance of designing specialized tests with a particular target group in mind, so that test variables could be selected for cerebellar tumor survivors.

Neuromodulatory effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on language performance in healthy participants: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The causal relationships between neural substrates and human language have been investigated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, the robustness of TMS neuromodulatory effects is still largely unspecified. This study aims to systematically examine the efficacy of TMS on healthy participants' language performance.

Methods

For this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar from database inception until October 15, 2022 for eligible TMS studies on language comprehension and production in healthy adults published in English. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Potential publication biases were assessed by funnel plots and the Egger Test. We conducted overall as well as moderator meta-analyses. Effect sizes were estimated using Hedges'g (g) and entered into a three-level random effects model.

Results

Thirty-seven studies (797 participants) with 77 effect sizes were included. The three-level random effects model revealed significant overall TMS effects on language performance in healthy participants (RT: g = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.29; ACC: g = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.24). Further moderator analyses indicated that (a) for language tasks, TMS induced significant neuromodulatory effects on semantic and phonological tasks, but didn't show significance for syntactic tasks; (b) for cortical targets, TMS effects were not significant in left frontal, temporal or parietal regions, but were marginally significant in the inferior frontal gyrus in a finer-scale analysis; (c) for stimulation parameters, stimulation sites extracted from previous studies, rTMS, and intensities calibrated to the individual resting motor threshold are more prone to induce robust TMS effects. As for stimulation frequencies and timing, both high and low frequencies, online and offline stimulation elicited significant effects; (d) for experimental designs, studies adopting sham TMS or no TMS as the control condition and within-subject design obtained more significant effects.

Discussion

Overall, the results show that TMS may robustly modulate healthy adults' language performance and scrutinize the brain-and-language relation in a profound fashion. However, due to limited sample size and constraints in the current meta-analysis approach, analyses at a more comprehensive level were not conducted and results need to be confirmed by future studies.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=366481], identifier [CRD42022366481].

HD-tDCS of primary and higher-order motor cortex affects action word processing

The contribution of action-perception systems of the brain to lexical semantics remains controversial. Here, we used high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) in healthy adults to examine the role of primary (left hand motor area; HMA) and higher-order (left anterior inferior parietal lobe; aIPL) action areas in action-related word processing (action verbs and manipulable nouns) compared to non-action-related control words (non-action verbs and non-manipulable nouns). We investigated stimulation-related effects at three levels of semantic processing: subliminal, implicit, and explicit. Broadly, we found that stimulation of HMA and aIPL resulted in relative facilitation of action-related language processing compared to non-action. HMA stimulation facilitated action verb processing in subliminal and implicit task contexts, suggesting that HMA helps represent action verbs even in semantically shallow tasks. HMA stimulation also facilitated manipulable noun comprehension in an explicit semantic task, suggesting that HMA contributes to manipulable noun comprehension when semantic demands are high. aIPL stimulation facilitated both manipulable noun and action verb processing during an implicit task. We suggest that both HMA and aIPL play a functional role in action semantics. HMA plays a general role in the semantics of actions and manipulable objects, while aIPL is important only when visuo-motor coordination is required for the action.