CompreTAP: Feasibility and reliability of a new language comprehension mapping task via preoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Stimulation-based language mapping approaches that are used pre- and intraoperatively employ predominantly overt language tasks requiring sufficient language production abilities. Yet, these production-based setups are often not feasible in brain tumor patients with severe expressive aphasia. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and reliability of a newly developed language comprehension task with preoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS).

METHODS

Fifteen healthy subjects and six brain tumor patients with severe expressive aphasia unable to perform classic overt naming tasks underwent preoperative nTMS language mapping based on an auditory single-word Comprehension TAsk for Perioperative mapping (CompreTAP). Comprehension was probed by button-press responses to auditory stimuli, hence not requiring overt language responses. Positive comprehension areas were identified when stimulation elicited an incorrect or delayed button press. Error categories, case-wise cortical error rate distribution and inter-rater reliability between two experienced specialists were examined.

RESULTS

Overall, the new setup showed to be feasible. Comprehension-disruptions induced by nTMS manifested in no responses, delayed or hesitant responses, searching behavior or selection of wrong target items across all patients and controls and could be performed even in patients with severe expressive aphasia. The analysis agreement between both specialists was substantial for classifying comprehension-positive and -negative sites. Extensive left-hemispheric individual cortical comprehension sites were identified for all patients. Apart from one case presenting with transient worsening of aphasic symptoms, pre-existing language deficits did not aggravate if results were used for subsequent surgical planning.

CONCLUSION

Employing this new comprehension-based nTMS setup allowed to identify language relevant cortical sites in all healthy subjects and severely aphasic patients who were thus far precluded from classic production-based mapping. This pilot study, moreover, provides first indications that the CompreTAP mapping results may support the preservation of residual language function if used for subsequent surgical planning.

Adding a fourth rater to three had little impact in pre-linguistic outcome classification

The consequence of differing levels of agreement across raters is rarely studied. Subsequently, knowledge is limited on how number of raters affects the outcome. The present study aimed to examine the impact on pre-linguistic outcome classifications of 12-month-old infants when using four raters compared to three. Thirty experienced Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) from five countries assessed 20 minute video recordings of four 12-month-old infants during a play session with a parent. One recording was assessed twice. A naturalistic listening method in real time was used. This involved: (1) assessing, each syllable as canonical or non-canonical, and (2) following the recording, assessing if the infant was babbling canonically and listing the syllables the infant produced with command. The impact that four raters had on outcome, compared to three, was explored by classifying the outcome based on all possible combinations of three raters and determining the frequency that the outcome assessment changed when a fourth assessor was added. Results revealed that adding a fourth rater had a minimal impact on canonical babbling ratio assessment. Presence/absence of canonical babbling and size of consonant inventory showed a negligible impact on three out of four recordings, whereas the size of syllable inventory and presence/absence of canonical babbling was minimally affected in one recording by adding a fourth rater. In conclusion, adding a forth rater in assessment of pre-linguistic utterances in 12-month-old infants with naturalistic assessment in real time does not affect outcome classifications considerably. Thus, using three raters, as opposed to four, is recommended.