Clinical Implementation of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Aphasia: A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists

Reversing the Ruin: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Restoration After Stroke

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stroke is a common cause of disability in aging adults. A given individual's needs after stroke vary as a function of the stroke extent and location. The purpose of this review was to discuss recent clinical investigations addressing rehabilitation of an array of overlapping functional domains.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research is ongoing in the domains of movement, cognition, attention, speech, language, swallowing, and mental health. To best assist patients' recovery, innovative research has sought to develop and evaluate behavioral approaches, identify and refine synergistic approaches that augment the response to behavioral therapy, and integrate technology where appropriate, particularly to introduce and titrate real-world complexity and improve the overall experience of therapy. Recent and ongoing trials have increasingly adopted a multidisciplinary nature - augmenting refined behavioral therapy approaches with methods for increasing their potency, such as pharmaceutical or electrical interventions. The integration of virtual reality, robotics, and other technological advancements has generated immense excitement, but has not resulted in consistent improvements over more universally accessible, lower technology therapy.

Are People With Poststroke Aphasia Receptive to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation? A Survey

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to explore receptiveness of people with poststroke aphasia to receiving transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), including preferences for the treatment setting and schedule of tDCS delivery.

METHOD

An online survey was distributed via e-mail, flyers, social media, and online newsletters to reach people with aphasia. Fisher's exact test examined the relationship of self-reported tDCS receptiveness to demographic, clinical, and other factors.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven surveys were returned, and 50 complete surveys were analyzed. Twenty-eight percent of respondents had previously heard of tDCS. Sixty-six percent reported they would receive tDCS if it could help their aphasia, and only 6% reported that they definitely would not. There were statistically significant relationships between being receptive to tDCS and (a) not currently working, (b) being receptive to speech-language therapy, and (c) greater acceptance of potential temporary risks associated with tDCS. Most individuals (73%) who would consider tDCS were equivalently open to receiving it in the clinic or at home, yet the majority (64%) were open to more frequent sessions at home than in the clinic. Most respondents indicated that they would consider having tDCS "forever if it helped" (clinic: 51%; home: 68%).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to query individuals with aphasia about their receptiveness to tDCS outside the context of an intervention study. Responses suggest that a large majority of people with poststroke aphasia might be open to receiving tDCS if it can ameliorate their aphasia. Limitations include the small sample size, which does not adequately represent the broader population of people with aphasia, and that the survey did not provide the level of tDCS education crucial to inform shared decision making and person-centered care. However, future work may benefit from considering the practical implications of research designs (e.g., high intensity treatment outside the home) that may not, in application, be widely acceptable to primary stakeholders.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19611777.

Defining the Neurobiological Mechanisms of Action in Aphasia Therapies: Applying the RTSS Framework to Research and Practice in Aphasia

The Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS; Van Stan et al., 2019) was developed as a systematic way to describe rehabilitation treatments for the purpose of both research and practice. The RTSS groups treatments by type and describes them by three elements - the treatment (i) ingredients and (ii) the mechanisms of action that yield changes in the (iii) target behavior. Adopting the RTSS has the potential to improve consistency in research, allowing for better cross-study comparisons to strengthen the body of research supporting various treatments. As it is still early in its development, the RTSS has not yet been widely implemented across different rehabilitation disciplines. In particular, aphasia recovery is one area of rehabilitation that could benefit from a unifying framework. Accordingly, this paper is part of a series where we illustrate how the RTSS can be applied to aphasia treatment and research. This paper more specifically focuses on examining the neurobiological mechanisms of action associated with experimental aphasia therapies - including brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention - as well as more traditional behavioral therapy. Key elements of the RTSS are described, and four example studies are used to illustrate how the RTSS can be implemented. The benefits of a unifying framework for the future of aphasia treatment research and practice are discussed.