009) and buy GSK1120212 at F/U (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham at F/U, 19%; P = 0.041). No significant differences emerged in the mean percentage of accuracy between T0 and T10 for the sham condition (differences between T0 and T10, 11%; P = 0.641; see Fig. 3). We ran further analyses by adding the order of conditions (real stimulation vs. sham) as fixed factor. The order of condition was not significant
for the syllables, the words or the sentences (respectively, F1,6 = 0.56, P = 0.483, F1,6 = 2.42, P = 0.171 and F1,6 = 2.59, P = 0.159). The analysis showed a significant effect of Time (T0 vs. T10 vs. F/U, F2,14 = 18.75, P = 0.000) and of Condition (Real Stimulation vs. Sham, F1,7 = 6.1, P = 0.043). The interaction Time × Condition was also significant (F2,14 = 4.27, P = 0.036). The Scheffé post hoc test revealed that, while no significant differences emerged in the mean vocal
reaction times between the two conditions at T0 (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham, 306 ms; P = 0.984), the mean vocal reaction times were Ku-0059436 concentration significantly faster in the real stimulation than in the sham condition, both at T10 (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham at T10, 2003 ms; P = 0.013) and at F/U (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham at F/U, 1524 ms; P = 0.042). No significant differences emerged in the mean vocal reaction times between T0 and T10 for the sham condition (differences between T0 and T10, 747 ms; P = 0.599; see Fig. 4). The analysis showed a significant
effect of Time (T0 vs. T10 vs. F/U; F2,14 = 15.11, P = 0.000) and Condition (Real Stimulation vs. Sham; F1,7 = 6.38, P = 0.040). The interaction of Time × Condition was also significant (F2,14 = 6.77, P = 0.009). The Scheffé post hoc test revealed that, while no significant differences emerged in the mean vocal reaction time between the two conditions at T0 (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham, 135 ms; P = 1), the mean vocal reaction times were significantly faster in the real stimulation condition than in the sham condition both at T10 (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham at T10, 5191 ms; P = 0.006) and at F/U (differences between Real Stimulation and Sham at F/U, 3764 ms; P = 0.048). No significant differences emerged in selleck inhibitor the mean vocal reaction times between T0 and T10 for the sham condition (differences between T0 and T10, 2594 ms; P = 0.304; see Fig. 4). We ran further analyses by adding the order of conditions (real stimulation vs. sham) as fixed factor. Neither for the words nor for the sentences was the order of condition significant (respectively, F1,6 = 4.59, P = 0.076 and F1,6 = 1.32, P = 0.294). The aim of the present study was to investigate whether bihemispheric frontal stimulation would enhance language recovery and, in particular, language articulation, in a group of left chronic aphasic persons.