Language comprehension in chronic aphasia relies on the language network, not the Multiple Demand network.

The mechanisms of aphasia recovery following left-hemisphere stroke remain debated. Two broad hypotheses have been proposed for how recovery occurs when specialized systems, such as the language system, are affected by brain damage: i) recovery depends on the remaining components of the language system; and ii) recovery depends on functional remapping in brain areas outside of the language system. A key candidate for such takeover of language function is the Multiple Demand (MD) system-an extensive bilateral network that supports executive functions and is associated with the ability to flexibly adapt to task goals. The theoretical premise is that this system is capable of a wide range of cognitive tasks and can potentially be repurposed for language when specialized resources are no longer sufficient. We used precision functional MRI to evaluate these two hypotheses about aphasia recovery in 37 individuals (mean age = 58.3, SD = 8.4) with chronic aphasia due to a single left-hemisphere stroke, along with 38 age-matched controls (mean age = 61.6, SD = 9.2). Participants performed extensively validated functional localizers to identify the language network and the MD network within individuals. Participants with aphasia additionally completed extensive behavioral assessments that evaluated linguistic and executive skills. We first examined responses during language processing-audio-visual speech comprehension and reading-in each of the two networks, and then we related activity and functional connectivity measures from the two networks to linguistic ability. Our results do not support the hypothesis of drastic reorganization of the language system in the form of co-opting parts of the MD system in chronic aphasia. First, the language network and the MD network remain robustly dissociated: the language network responds strongly and selectively to language across modalities (left-hemisphere language regions: pFDR < 0.003), and no MD region shows increased activation during language comprehension relative to controls (pFDR > 0.24). Second, functional connectivity analyses reveal no evidence for increased integration between the two networks during language processing. Third, linguistic ability, as measured by an extensive behavioral battery of tests, is associated with the strength of activity and functional connectivity within the language network, but not within the MD network. Although we cannot rule out a role for the MD network in aphasia recovery during the acute and subacute phases or in more severely impaired patients, it appears that during the chronic phase, language comprehension relies on the same specialized network as prior to the injury.