Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Heiss et al. (1999)

Reference

Authors	Heiss WD, Kessler J, Thiel A, Ghaemi M, Karbe H
Title	Differential capacity of left and right hemispheric areas for compensation of poststroke aphasia
Reference	Ann Neurol 1999; 45: 430-438
PMID	10211466
DOI	10.1002/1531-8249(199904)45:4<430::aid-ana3>3.0.co;2-p

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	AAT repetition ≥ 50
Number of individuals with aphasia	23
Number of control participants	11
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 31-77 years; assume patient's age of 5.6 years is a typo for 56 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 15; females: 8)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 23; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	AAT, phonemic fluency
Aphasia severity	T1: subcortical: TT median 8 errors, range 0-17 errors; frontal: TT median 21 errors, range 4-40 errors; temporal: TT median 39 errors, range 1-47 errors; T2: subcortical: TT median 1 error, range 0-14 errors; frontal: TT median 8 errors, range 0-34; temporal: TT median 34 errors, range 0-44 errors
Aphasia type	T1: 6 Wernicke's, 5 Broca's, 5 residual aphasia, 4 anomic, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 conduction; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Extent and location
Lesion extent	Range 4.3-154.3 cc (probably; units not stated)
Lesion location	L MCA; 9 subcortical, 7 frontal, 7 temporal
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	8
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?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
noun repetition	Word (overt)	4	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Inclusion criterion would suggest all patients could do the task, but this is not stated

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: noun repetition vs rest

Language condition	Noun repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
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?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	L frontal and bilateral temporal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical damage (n = 9) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L mid temporal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with frontal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L posterior STG ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R mid temporal ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9)
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior STG ↓ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T1 (n = 7)
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9)
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 7

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T2 (n = 7)
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 8

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 9

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with frontal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 10

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434; L IFG pars opercularis noted as different in text despite being significant in both groups
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 11

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 12

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with frontal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 13

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 14

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and good recovery (n = 11) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 15

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and poor recovery (n = 5) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 16

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T1 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T1 (n = 5)
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings	↑ L posterior STG ↑ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 17

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T2 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T2 (n = 5)
Covariate	—
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—