| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 11 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 51.0 years, range 19-66 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 4) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 11; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (median 32 months; range 6-480 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | AAT, study-specific picture naming test with 150 items |
| Aphasia severity | 6 moderate, 4 mild, 1 severe |
| Aphasia type | 7 Broca's, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 unclassified |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Range 31.0-236.0 cc |
| Lesion location | L |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | CIAT, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Intera 1.5 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 160 |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
| Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (trained items) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | — |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (untrained items) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | — |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ picture naming (trained items) |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Picture naming score (trained items) increased from 51.7 ± 24.8 to 78.8 ± 22.1, which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001) |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | The dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | 2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Improved picture naming of trained items was correlated with increased signal in 3 of the 4 ROIs, the exception being the right hemisphere ROI homotopic to the slow wave area; after removing the two outliers, only the correlation in the left hemisphere area of slow wave activity remained significant |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ picture naming (untrained items) |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Picture naming score (untrained items) increased from 54.0 ± 24.3 to 70.5 ± 26.7, which was statistically significant (p= 0.002) |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | The dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | 2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Improved picture naming of untrained items was correlated with increased signal in all 4 ROIs; after removing the two outliers, none of the correlations remained significant |
