search
Back to results

Neuro Device for Aphasia

Primary Purpose

Post-stroke Aphasia

Status
Recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
tACS
Sponsored by
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Post-stroke Aphasia focused on measuring speech therapy, brain stimulation, communication, language

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 80 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Individuals with aphasia (assessed using the Boston Aphasia Diagnostic Test) who perform the Naming Task in the range of 10%-60% accuracy will be included in the study. The final score in the Naming Task will be estimated from the two baseline measurements.

Inclusion Criteria:

  • diagnosis of aphasia: Broca's or mixed (based on the assessment of a neuropsychologist or referring physician.
  • presence of a focus of injury in the left hemisphere (within one hemisphere only) as a result of the first ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke (based on CT/MRI examination);
  • chronic stage of the disease - time since the stroke occurred over 6 months.
  • ability to achieve an accuracy in the Naming Task of 10-60%.
  • 18-80 years
  • right-handedness before the stroke.
  • ability to give informed written consent.
  • fluency in English.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • severe cognitive, auditory, or visual impairment that would preclude cognitive and language testing.
  • presence of metal implants in the skull.
  • presence of major untreated or unstable psychiatric disease.
  • history of epilepsy or seizures.
  • ongoing medication that increases the risk of epileptic seizures.
  • presence in the body of cardiac stimulators or pacemaker.
  • history of speech, language, hearing, or intellectual disability during childhood.
  • pregnancy (based on declarations)

Exclusion criteria during the trial:

  • high intolerance to stimulation.
  • occurrence of an epileptic seizure.
  • other previously absent neurological or mental symptoms

Sites / Locations

  • Abilities Research Center at Mount SinaiRecruiting

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Sham Comparator

Arm Label

Real tACS

Sham tACS

Arm Description

tACS 75Hz intervention combined with language tasks and breathing exercises. The device will operate in tACS research active stimulation mode.

tACS sham intervention combined with language tasks and breathing exercises. The device will operate in tACS sham simulation research mode.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Percentage score in the Naming Task (trained words)
The Baseline Naming Task consists of 344 images representing nouns and the images will be presented on the computer screen. The task is to name the presented noun by producing the name of the item out loud. The answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items marked with a score of 3 are considered accurate. From the baseline assessment, a random list of 50 incorrectly named words will be trained in therapy. Minimum score is 0% (inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (accuracy in naming all presented objects), where a higher score indicates a better health outcome

Secondary Outcome Measures

Naming Task (untrained words)
Generalization - percentage score in the Naming Task (untrained words). The answer is scored on a three-stage scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Every Naming Task session will be recorded, so the independent SLP (speech-language pathologist) will again assess response accuracy. In case of inconsistency of scores, third independent SLP will decide.
Naming reaction time (within baseline naming task)
Amount of time elapsed between the presentation of the stimuli to the first attempt of the patient's response. Measured by clinician recording of time elapsed before response attempted for each stimuli presented. Average overall response time will at baseline will be recorded.
Naming reaction time (within baseline naming task)
Amount of time elapsed between the presentation of the stimuli to the first attempt of the patient's response. Measured by clinician recording of time elapsed before response attempted for each stimuli presented. Average overall response time at 12-week follow-up will be recorded.
Number of correct answers without supporting cues
Number of correct answers on the fifth level (no cueing) during the therapy task. Greater number of correct responses indicates better response to treatment.
Accuracy of naming during the therapy session
Number of correct responses to presented stimuli. Greater number of correct responses indicates better response to treatment.
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE)
Oral Expression Subtest - the speech language pathologist assesses the patient with the oral expression portion of the BDAE. Areas assessed include automatic sequences, repetition of words and sentences, responsive and confrontational naming, and screening of letters and numbers. Each item receives a point for correctness with a maximal score of 48
Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE)
Oral Expression Subtest - the speech language pathologist assesses the patient with the oral expression portion of the BDAE. Areas assessed include automatic sequences, repetition of words and sentences, responsive and confrontational naming, and screening of letters and numbers. Each item receives a point for correctness with a maximal score of 48
Accuracy of masking measurement: Patient and Researcher
The opinion of the patient and of the researcher on receiving the placebo vs. active stimulation. The patient and researcher provide their guess/opinion as to whether the stimulation received during treatment was active or sham. It will be taken after the end of the last treatment session.
Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Stimulation tolerance/side effects are measured using a visual analog scale with seven components (headache, fatigue, sleepiness, dizziness, pain on scalp, tingling on scalp, burning sensation on scalp, and itching on scalp). Ratings will be taken before and after each session. Full scale 0-10 per component. Higher score indicates a higher degree of each side effect.
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
BDNF genotype
Saliva samples will be collected to test for typical vs. atypical brain plasticity biomarkers, as BDNF genotype may interfere with results of therapy paired with transcranial electrical stimulation. Research suggests that individuals with an atypical BDNF genotype are less receptive to the beneficial effects of speech-language therapy paired with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, compared to individuals with typical BDNF genotype

Full Information

First Posted
January 4, 2022
Last Updated
September 15, 2023
Sponsor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Collaborators
Neuro Device Group S.A.
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05194566
Brief Title
Neuro Device for Aphasia
Official Title
Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Post-Stroke Aphasia
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
September 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Recruiting
Study Start Date
September 6, 2023 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
May 2024 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
May 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Collaborators
Neuro Device Group S.A.

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
Yes
Device Product Not Approved or Cleared by U.S. FDA
Yes
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The aim of the trial is to determine whether 75Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) synchronized with therapeutic linguistic tasks is an effective form of therapy for post-stroke aphasia.
Detailed Description
There are about 15 million strokes worldwide each year. Of this group, about 30% suffer from aphasia. Aphasia is a speech-language disorder associated with exceptional difficulty performing daily communication activities. If no improvement is observed within the first months after the stroke, a complete recovery is unlikely, and the therapy can last for years. Up to date, speech and language therapy is a standard of care for post-stroke aphasia, however the process is long and demanding. In the past, several clinical trials aimed to verify the efficacy of language training paired with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), however recent meta-analysis indicates only possible effectiveness (Level C evidence) of anodal tDCS in chronic post-stroke aphasia. To boost the effects of aphasia rehabilitation, effective brain stimulation protocol still needs to be developed. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) can be an interesting alternative to tDCS, as it is able to influence cortical excitability and activity. Stimulation within high gamma oscillations (60-500Hz) might allow for better speech-language processing, as this band is considered to be the cognitive index of linguistic processes. Moreover, a short period of 75Hz tACS over the motor cortex suggested the positive impact of high-gamma tACS on brain plasticity. The aim of this RCT is to determine whether 75Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) paired with therapeutic linguistic tasks is an effective form of therapy for post-stroke aphasia, measured as an ability to name trained items at 12 weeks follow-up.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Post-stroke Aphasia
Keywords
speech therapy, brain stimulation, communication, language

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
The study will employ a between-subject randomized sham-controlled design.
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
Participant, investigator and outcomes assessor are all blinded. Designated research team members will be unblinded in order to manage computerized procedure.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
64 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Real tACS
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
tACS 75Hz intervention combined with language tasks and breathing exercises. The device will operate in tACS research active stimulation mode.
Arm Title
Sham tACS
Arm Type
Sham Comparator
Arm Description
tACS sham intervention combined with language tasks and breathing exercises. The device will operate in tACS sham simulation research mode.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
tACS
Other Intervention Name(s)
transcranial alternating current stimulation
Intervention Description
Neurostimulation will be done using the Neuro Device tCS (Neuro Device tCS), which is a certified transcranial electrical stimulator. The device consists of a stimulator with a touch screen, two electrodes and a soft, flexible cap to ensure stability of the electrodes on the head.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage score in the Naming Task (trained words)
Description
The Baseline Naming Task consists of 344 images representing nouns and the images will be presented on the computer screen. The task is to name the presented noun by producing the name of the item out loud. The answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items marked with a score of 3 are considered accurate. From the baseline assessment, a random list of 50 incorrectly named words will be trained in therapy. Minimum score is 0% (inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (accuracy in naming all presented objects), where a higher score indicates a better health outcome
Time Frame
at 12 weeks
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Naming Task (untrained words)
Description
Generalization - percentage score in the Naming Task (untrained words). The answer is scored on a three-stage scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Every Naming Task session will be recorded, so the independent SLP (speech-language pathologist) will again assess response accuracy. In case of inconsistency of scores, third independent SLP will decide.
Time Frame
at 12 weeks
Title
Naming reaction time (within baseline naming task)
Description
Amount of time elapsed between the presentation of the stimuli to the first attempt of the patient's response. Measured by clinician recording of time elapsed before response attempted for each stimuli presented. Average overall response time will at baseline will be recorded.
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
Naming reaction time (within baseline naming task)
Description
Amount of time elapsed between the presentation of the stimuli to the first attempt of the patient's response. Measured by clinician recording of time elapsed before response attempted for each stimuli presented. Average overall response time at 12-week follow-up will be recorded.
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
Number of correct answers without supporting cues
Description
Number of correct answers on the fifth level (no cueing) during the therapy task. Greater number of correct responses indicates better response to treatment.
Time Frame
2 weeks
Title
Accuracy of naming during the therapy session
Description
Number of correct responses to presented stimuli. Greater number of correct responses indicates better response to treatment.
Time Frame
2 weeks
Title
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Description
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Description
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Time Frame
at the end of the last therapy session at the end of week 4
Title
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Description
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Time Frame
at 6-week follow-up
Title
Percentage Score in Naming Task (untrained words)
Description
Percentage score calculated for words not trained in therapy task to assess generalization. Patients are presented with 25 words not trained during therapy sessions. Each answer is scored on a three-point scale (1 - not able to name correctly, 2 - named with phonological or semantic paraphasia, 3 - correct). Items receiving a score of 3 are marked as correct, with a maximum total number of correct items being 25. Minimum score is 0% (0/25- inability to name any objects) and maximum score is 100% (25/25- accuracy in naming all presented objects), where higher score indicates better response to treatment.
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
Description
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
Description
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at the end of the last therapy session at the end of week 4
Title
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
Description
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at 6-week follow-up
Title
Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI)
Description
The participants primary communication partner rates the participants' ability to perform in sixteen communication situations on a visual analog scale with the lowest value (a score of 0) as "not at all able" and the greatest value (a score of 10) as "as able to as before", where higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE)
Description
Oral Expression Subtest - the speech language pathologist assesses the patient with the oral expression portion of the BDAE. Areas assessed include automatic sequences, repetition of words and sentences, responsive and confrontational naming, and screening of letters and numbers. Each item receives a point for correctness with a maximal score of 48
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE)
Description
Oral Expression Subtest - the speech language pathologist assesses the patient with the oral expression portion of the BDAE. Areas assessed include automatic sequences, repetition of words and sentences, responsive and confrontational naming, and screening of letters and numbers. Each item receives a point for correctness with a maximal score of 48
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
Accuracy of masking measurement: Patient and Researcher
Description
The opinion of the patient and of the researcher on receiving the placebo vs. active stimulation. The patient and researcher provide their guess/opinion as to whether the stimulation received during treatment was active or sham. It will be taken after the end of the last treatment session.
Time Frame
end of treatment (at 12 weeks)
Title
Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Description
Stimulation tolerance/side effects are measured using a visual analog scale with seven components (headache, fatigue, sleepiness, dizziness, pain on scalp, tingling on scalp, burning sensation on scalp, and itching on scalp). Ratings will be taken before and after each session. Full scale 0-10 per component. Higher score indicates a higher degree of each side effect.
Time Frame
2 weeks
Title
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Description
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Description
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Time Frame
at the end of the last therapy session at the end of week 4
Title
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Description
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Time Frame
at 6-week follow-up
Title
Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) Score
Description
Assesses the ability to complete daily tasks pertaining to self-care, communication, interaction with others, and physical mobility. The SAQOL includes 17 questions, where questions are rated on a 1-5 scale with a score of 1 indicating greater disability and 5 indicating none. Total score ranges from 17-85. Scores are averaged across three domains (physical, communication, and psychosocial), with lower scores indicating lesser ability (lower quality of life) and higher scores indicating great ability or independence (greater quality of life)
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Description
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Description
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
Time Frame
at the end of the last therapy session at the end of week 4
Title
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Description
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
Time Frame
at 6-week follow-up
Title
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
Description
Identifies minor psychiatric disorders in the general population and within community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-patients. GHQ-12 is a 12-items scaled version that assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. A total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating worse conditions
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Description
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at Baseline
Title
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Description
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at the end of the last therapy session at the end of week 4
Title
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Description
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at 6-week follow-up
Title
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Description
Assesses the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. The possible score range on the BRS is from 1 (low resilience) to 5 (high resilience). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.
Time Frame
at 12-week follow-up
Title
BDNF genotype
Description
Saliva samples will be collected to test for typical vs. atypical brain plasticity biomarkers, as BDNF genotype may interfere with results of therapy paired with transcranial electrical stimulation. Research suggests that individuals with an atypical BDNF genotype are less receptive to the beneficial effects of speech-language therapy paired with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, compared to individuals with typical BDNF genotype
Time Frame
at Baseline

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
80 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Individuals with aphasia (assessed using the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination) who perform the Naming Task in the range of 10%-60% accuracy will be included in the study. The overall baseline score in the Naming Task will be estimated from the two baseline measurements. Inclusion Criteria: diagnosis of aphasia: Broca's or mixed (based on the assessment of a Speech Language Pathologist). presence of a focus of injury in the left hemisphere (within one hemisphere only) as a result of the first ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke (based on CT/MRI examination); chronic stage of the disease - time since the stroke occurred over 6 months. ability to achieve an accuracy in the Naming Task of 10-60%. 18-80 years right-handedness before the stroke. ability to give informed written consent. fluency in English. Exclusion Criteria: severe cognitive, auditory or visual impairment that would preclude cognitive and language testing - inability to follow a two-step command. presence of metal implants in the skull. presence of major untreated or unstable psychiatric disease. history of epilepsy or seizures. ongoing medication that increases the risk of epileptic seizures. presence in the body of cardiac stimulators or pacemaker. history of speech, language, hearing, or intellectual disability during childhood. pregnancy (based on declarations) Exclusion criteria during the trial: high intolerance to stimulation. occurrence of an epileptic seizure. other previously absent neurological or mental symptoms Withdrawal criteria: high intolerance to stimulation (participants experience severe discomfort during stimulation); occurrence of an epileptic seizure; other previously absent neurological, physical or mental symptoms.
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Aidan Rogers
Phone
(718) 308-9450
Email
aidan.rogers@mountsinai.org
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Courtney McSweeney
Email
Courtney.McSweeney@mountsinai.org
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Miguel Escalon, MD, MPH
Organizational Affiliation
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Jaskiran Ghuman, DO
Organizational Affiliation
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Abilities Research Center at Mount Sinai
City
New York
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10029
Country
United States
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Aidan Rogers
Email
aidan.rogers@mountsinai.org
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Miguel Escalon, MD, MPH
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Jaskiran Ghuman, DO

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Not applicable to study aims
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
30150003
Citation
Fridriksson J, Elm J, Stark BC, Basilakos A, Rorden C, Sen S, George MS, Gottfried M, Bonilha L. BDNF genotype and tDCS interaction in aphasia treatment. Brain Stimul. 2018 Nov-Dec;11(6):1276-1281. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.08.009. Epub 2018 Aug 18.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Neuro Device for Aphasia

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs