To deeply investigate NVP-BKM120 in vivo the aphasics’ language performance, each subject was also administered

a standardised language test (Esame del Linguaggio II; Ciurli et al., 1996). The test included a picture description task, oral and written noun- and verb-naming tasks [n = 20 for noun naming, i.e. topo (mouse); n = 10 for verb naming, i.e. correre (to run), dormire (to sleep)], word repetition, reading and writing under dictation [n = 20, i.e. letto (bed), tavolo (table)]. The test also comprised an auditory picture–word matching task (n = 20) and a simple commands comprehension task [n = 20, i.e. alzi la mano sinistra (raise your left hand), apra il libro (open the book)]. In all oral tasks, due to their apraxia speech disorder most patients did not produce any response (see Table 1). Some phonological errors were also present [i.e. topo (mouse)

popo]. Noun and verb written naming and word writing under dictation were severely impaired. Errors were mostly omissions of the whole word. Auditory comprehension abilities were adequate for words and simple commands in the language test (Esame del Linguaggio II; Ciurli et al., 1996) while patients still had difficulties in a more complex auditory comprehension task (Token test cut-off 29/36; De Renzi & Faglioni, 1978; see Table 1). To evaluate nonverbal oral motor skills, Anti-cancer Compound Library mouse the Oral Apraxia test (De Renzi et al., 1966) was administered. None of the patients showed apraxic disturbances. Transcranial direct current stimulation was applied using a battery-driven Eldith (NeuroConn GmbH, Germany) Programmable

Direct Current Stimulator with a pair of surface-soaked sponge electrodes (5 × 7 cm). Real stimulation consisted of 20 min of 2 mA direct current with the anode placed over the ipsilesional and the cathode over the contralesional IFG (F5 and F7 of the extended International 10–20 system for EEG electrode placement). For sham stimulation, the same electrode positions were used. The current was ramped up to 2 mA and slowly decreased over 30 s to ensure the typical initial tingling sensation (Gandiga et al., 2006). In both conditions, patients underwent concurrent speech therapy for their RG7420 solubility dmso apraxia speech disorder. The language treatment was performed in ten daily sessions (Monday to Friday, then weekend off, then Monday to Friday). There was 14-day intersession interval between the real and the sham conditions. The order of conditions was randomised across subjects (see Fig. 2). Both the patient and the clinician were blinded with respect to the administration of tDCS. At the end of each condition, subjects were asked if they were aware of which condition (real or sham) they were in. None of the subjects was able to ascertain differences in intensity of sensation between the two conditions. Patients were administered all the standardised language tests at the beginning (baseline; T0) and at the end (T10) of each treatment condition, and 1 week after T10 (follow-up; F/U).