The role of the anterior temporal lobes in cognition and language has been much debated in the literature over the last few years. Most prevailing theories argue for an important role of the anterior temporal lobe as a semantic hub or a place for the representation of unique entities such as proper names of peoples and places. Lately, a few studies have investigated the role of the most anterior part of the left anterior temporal lobe, the left temporal pole in particular, and argued that the left anterior temporal pole is the area responsible for mapping meaning on to sound through evidence from tasks such as object naming. However, another recent study indicates that bilateral anterior temporal damage is required to cause a clinically significant semantic impairment. In the present study, we tested these hypotheses by evaluating patients with acute stroke before reorganization of structure–function relationships. We compared a group of 20 patients with acute stroke with anterior temporal pole damage to a group of 28 without anterior temporal pole damage matched for infarct volume. We calculated the average percent error in auditory comprehension and naming tasks as a function of infarct volume using a non-parametric regression method. We found that infarct volume was the only predictive variable in the production of semantic errors in both auditory comprehension and object naming tasks. This finding favours the hypothesis that left unilateral anterior temporal pole lesions, even acutely, are unlikely to cause significant deficits in mapping meaning to sound by themselves, although they contribute to networks underlying both naming and comprehension of objects. Therefore, the anterior temporal lobe may be a semantic hub for object meaning, but its role must be represented bilaterally and perhaps redundantly.

Introduction: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been recently shown to improve language outcomes in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) but most studies are small and the influence of PPA variant is unknown. Methods: Thirty‐six patients with PPA participated in a randomized, sham‐controlled, double‐blind, within‐subject crossover design for 15 daily sessions of stimulation coupled with written naming/spelling therapy. Outcome measures were letter accuracy of treated and untreated words immediately after and at 2 weeks and 2 months posttreatment. Results: tDCS treatment was more effective than sham: gains for treated words were maintained 2 months posttreatment; gains from tDCS also generalized to untreated words and were sustained 2 months posttreatment. Different effects were obtained for each PPA variant, with no tDCS advantage for semantic variant PPA. Discussion: The study supports using tDCS as an adjunct to written language interventions in individuals with logopenic or nonfluent/agrammatic PPA seeking compensatory treatments in clinical settings.

Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disease that primarily affects language functions and often begins in the fifth or sixth decade of life. The devastating effects on work and family life call for the investigation of treatment alternatives. In this article, we present new data indicating that neuromodulatory treatment, using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with a spelling intervention, shows some promise for maintaining or even improving language, at least temporarily, in PPA. Aims: The main aim of the present article is to determine whether tDCS plus spelling intervention is more effective than spelling intervention alone in treating written language in PPA. We also asked whether the effects of tDCS are sustained longer than the effects of spelling intervention alone. Methods & Procedures: We present data from six PPA participants who underwent anodal tDCS or sham plus spelling intervention in a within-subject crossover design. Each stimulation condition lasted 3 weeks or a total of 15 sessions with a 2-month interval in between. Participants were evaluated on treatment tasks as well as on other language and cognitive tasks at 2-week and 2-month follow-up intervals after each stimulation condition. Outcomes & Results: All participants showed improvement in spelling (with sham or tDCS). There was no difference in the treated items between the two conditions. There was, however, consistent and significant improvement for untrained items only in the tDCS plus spelling intervention condition. Furthermore, the improvement lasted longer in the tDCS plus spelling intervention condition compared to sham plus spelling intervention condition. Conclusions: Neuromodulation with tDCS offers promise as a means of augmenting language therapy to improve written language function at least temporarily in PPA. The consistent finding of generalisation of treatment benefits to untreated items and the superior sustainability of treatment effects with tDCS justifies further investigations. However, the small sample size still requires caution in interpretation. Present interventions need to be optimised, and particular challenges, such as ways to account for the variable effect of degeneration in each individual, are discussed.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an innovative technique recently shown to improve language outcomes even in neurodegenerative conditions such as primary progressive aphasia (PPA), but the underlying brain mechanisms are not known. The present study tested whether the additional language gains with repetitive tDCS (over sham) in PPA are caused by changes in functional connectivity between the stimulated area (the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG)) and the rest of the language network. We scanned 24 PPA participants (11 female) before and after language intervention (written naming/spelling) with a resting-state fMRI sequence and compared changes before and after three weeks of tDCS or sham coupled with language therapy. We correlated changes in the language network as well as in the default mode network (DMN) with language therapy outcome measures (letter accuracy in written naming). Significant tDCS effects in functional connectivity were observed between the stimulated area and other language network areas and between the language network and the DMN. TDCS over the left IFG lowered the connectivity between the above pairs. Changes in functional connectivity correlated with improvement in language scores (letter accuracy as a proxy for written naming) evaluated before and after therapy. These results suggest that one mechanism for anodal tDCS over the left IFG in PPA is a decrease in functional connectivity (compared to sham) between the stimulated site and other posterior areas of the language network. These results are in line with similar decreases in connectivity observed after tDCS over the left IFG in aging and other neurodegenerative conditions.