| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 15 |
| Number of control participants | 8 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 43-76 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; 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 (range 5-76 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | PPT (Dutch), British picture vocabulary scale, Action for Dysphasic Adults lexical decision battery, auditory maximal pairs (an offline phoneme discrimination test) |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | Not stated, but all 6 patients with pSTS damage had single word comprehension deficits acutely |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
| Lesion extent | Range 0.5-14% of total brain volume |
| Lesion location | 9 L but sparing pSTS, 6 L including pSTS |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 16 |
| 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 | Higher word rates |
| Control condition | Lower word rates |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
| 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 | Control activation is bilateral in primary auditory cortex and the lateral STG (Fig. 1, labels 1 and 2), but there is a left-lateralized activation in the pSTS (label 3); the scatter plots in Fig. 1 show activity-word rate curves for peak pSTS voxels in individual subjects; slopes were steeper in the left hemisphere (p < 0.05), however, the identification of these voxels is not described in sufficient detail (i.e. what was the search region?) |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and controls |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS (n = 6) damage vs without pSTS damage (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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and patients with R pSTS damage |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control (n = 8) |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | R pSTS |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | The peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | The controls and patients without pSTS damage were combined, however it is stated in the caption to Figure 2 that the patients with pSTS damage were significantly different to both |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs aphasia without pSTS damage (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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | R pSTS |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | The peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | The controls and patients without pSTS damage were combined, however it is stated in the caption to Figure 2 that the patients with pSTS damage were significantly different to both |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
| Findings notes | — |
